Kings County Grand Jury final report

2005- 2006 KINGS COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF HANFORD/ CITY MANAGER RETIREMENT AGREEMENT
HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
ADDENDUM TO REPORT BY THE 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE
HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
FIRST 5 OF KINGS COUNTY
KINGS WASTE AND RECYCLING AUTHORITY
CITY OF HANFORD WASTE AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS
THE DEMISE OF FORT ROOSEVELT
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
DISASTER PLAN FOR KINGS COUNTY
ARMONA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
KINGS AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION
KIT CARSON SCHOOL DISTRICT
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
KINGS COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE
BOOT CAMP VISIT
KINGS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
CITY OF HANFORD/ CITY MANAGER
RETIREMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION.
The Kings County Grand Jury began its investigation on November 21, 2005 and
completed it on May 24, 2006.
As the Grand Jury commenced its investigation of the negotiation of the
“ Employment Agreement for a Fixed Term and General Release” ( See Exhibit 2;
hereinafter referred to as the “ 2005 Agreement”) it became apparent that many
other areas of inquiry were necessary. In order to present a complete
understanding of how and why the City of Hanford comes to important decisions a
wider and deeper scrutiny had to be initiated.
The Grand Jury found that a very important document, namely a “ Letter of
Agreement” ( See Exhibit 1; hereinafter referred to as the “ 1990 Agreement”)
dated December 11, 1990 and signed by the then Mayor and the newly hired City
Manager may not have been provided to all the present City Council members
during the negotiations for the 2005 Agreement or at any prior time. This
document should have been available to them while they were attempting to arrive
at a proper and informed decision as to the terms and conditions contained in the
2005 Agreement.
It is apparent to the Grand Jury that numerous errors were made by the City
Council and its advisors on how to conduct its closed sessions and in the
reviewing and suggesting changes to the 2005 Agreement. This resulted in
violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act ( see California Government Code sections
54950 et seq; hereinafter referred to as the “ Brown Act”).
The Grand Jury also discovered that there was no formal evaluation process in
place for the City Manager, although City Council members past and present have
urged such action for many years.
The investigation also revealed that no minutes are taken in any form during
closed sessions, although they are permitted but not required by the Brown Act.
The investigation also revealed a lack of security with regard to storage and access
to city employees’ personnel files.
II. AUTHORITY.
Our authority is pursuant to of the California Penal Code § 925a, which states,
“ The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any
incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any
other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the Grand Jury may investigate
and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments,
functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or
joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and
fit.” The Grand Jury’s mandate is “… to act as the public’s ‘ watchdog’ by
investigating and reporting upon the affairs of local government …” ( McClatchy
Newspapers v Superior Court [ 1988] 44 Cal. 3d 1162, 11760).
III. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION.
The Grand Jury enlisted the aid of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office in
establishing how to proceed with this investigation. This is allowable under
California Penal Code § 935 which states, “ The District Attorney may at all times
appear before the grand jury for the purpose of giving information or advice
relative to any matter cognizable by the grand jury, and may interrogate witnesses
before the grand jury whenever he thinks it necessary.”
It was decided that a permanent recorded transcript should be made. Therefore,
Kings Court Reporters was retained to record and transcribe all testimony, and the
District Attorney’s Office conducted the questioning of all witnesses on behalf of
the Grand Jury. All witnesses were placed under oath prior to their testimony and
admonished after their testimony not to reveal any matters discussed during their
appearance before the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury interviewed nineteen witnesses, some of whom were interviewed
multiple times. Sixty- three exhibits were collected as evidence and examined.
The final recorded transcripts consist of twenty- one volumes containing eleven
hundred seventy- nine pages of testimony.
IV. FINDINGS.
A. THE 2005 AGREEMENT ( EXHIBIT 2).
1. The 2005 Agreement was negotiated by attorneys representing the City
Council and the City Manager over a period of weeks, and it was signed by
the Mayor of Hanford and the City Manager prior to an open session of the
City Council on November 15, 2005.
2
2. Under Paragraph 2 of the 2005 Agreement, the City Manager “ for the time
period of December 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, will continue as City
Manager and thereafter, he will remain in paid status as Assistant City
Manager with the City providing services only as directed by the City
Council, through August 1, 2007, when he will officially commence his
retirement.”
3. Under Paragraph 3 of the 2005 Agreement, “ In the event that prior to June
30, 2006, the Hanford City Council hires a new City Manager or Mr.
Reynolds’ performance as City Manager is not consistent with the
Council’s expectations, the parties agree that he shall vacate the City
Manager position without loss of any salary and benefits and will assume
the position of Assistant City Manager. As Assistant City Manager, Mr.
Reynolds shall provide services only as directed by the City Council.”
( Underlining added)
4. Paragraph 4 of the 2005 Agreement states, “ In the event any of the actions
identified in Paragraph 3 of this agreement and release occur, Mr. Reynolds
shall vacate the position of City Manager, and assume the position of
Assistant City Manager and will be on paid administrative leave at same the
[ sic] salary and benefits, through August 1, 2007, the date upon which Mr.
Reynolds will retire from the City pursuant to the City’s retirement benefit
program then in effect.” ( Underlining added)
5. Under the 2005 Agreement, the total salary and benefits to be received by
the City Manager for the period of July 1, 2006 through August 1, 2007
will be $ 208,754. This is thirteen months times $ 12,197 monthly salary,
plus $ 3,861 monthly benefits.
6. Under the 2005 Agreement, with the extension of the City Manager’s
“ employment” from June 30, 2006 until August 1, 2007, the City
Manager’s retirement benefits will increase from “ 2% at 55” to “ 3% at 60.”
Under the current plan retiring persons would receive 2% of their final
salary times the number of years of employment, starting at age 55. Under
the future plan, which takes effect on July 1, 2007, retiring persons will
receive 3% of their final salary times the number of years employed,
starting at age 60. The new retirement program greatly increases the value
of the 2005 Agreement for the retiring employee, and will also significantly
add to the expenses incurred by the City of Hanford.
7. Nowhere in the 2005 Agreement is it stated that the City Council has the
ability to “ fire” the City Manager for non- performance of duties. Its only
recourse, according to the agreement, is that the City Manager “ shall vacate
the City Manager position without loss of any salary and benefits and will
assume the position of Assistant City Manager.” ( Paragraph 3)
Paragraph 4 states he will “ assume the position of Assistant City Manager
and will be on paid administrative leave at same the [ sic] salary and
benefits through August 1, 2007, the date upon which Mr. Reynolds will
3
retire from employment with the City pursuant to the City’s retirement
benefit program then in effect.”
Therefore, according to the 2005 Agreement, the only action the City
Council can take in the event of non- performance by the City Manager is to
continue to pay at full salary through August 1, 2007 in order to insure
eligibility for the improved retirement package.
B. THE 1990 AGREEMENT ( Exhibit 1).
1. The 1990 Agreement is dated December 11, 1990, printed on City of
Hanford letterhead, and signed by the then Mayor of Hanford and the
incoming City Manager. Under the 1990 Agreement, the City Manager
was an “ at will” employee who could be terminated at any time and for any
reason. Under the 2005 Agreement, the City Manager is now an employee
for a term ending on August 1, 2007, and there is no way the City Council
can terminate him. The Grand Jury cannot understand why the City
Council signed off on such a one- sided agreement. The Council’s
explanation that it felt it had a moral obligation to be generous with its
termination settlement does a disservice to the public.
2. The 1990 Agreement contains eight numbered items listing the benefits of
employment offered to and accepted by the new City Manager.
3. Item 7 of the 1990 Agreement states, “ should the City terminate the
employee for reasons other than malfeasance or illegal acts, the City shall
pay to the employee a lump sum cash payment equal to six ( 6) months
current aggregate salary. ”
4. Although the 1990 Agreement was superseded by the 2005 Agreement,
there is no mention made of it in the 2005 Agreement.
5. The Grand Jury sent a letter to the City Clerk dated November 28, 2005
requesting copies of all agreements between the City of Hanford and the
City Manager and received copies of both the 1990 Agreement and the
2005 Agreement within seventy- two ( 72) hours.
6. There is some evidence that current and former members of the Hanford
City Council made inquiries as to the existence of an agreement between
the City and the City Manager, but it was never given to any of them.
7. The Grand Jury finds that knowledge of the 1990 Agreement may have
affected the City Council’s negotiation of the 2005 Agreement and the
terms thereof.
8. The Grand Jury finds that information regarding the existence of and the
terms of the 1990 Agreement were not provided to City Council members
during the negotiation of the 2005 Agreement.
4
9. As the official body employing the City Manager and negotiating the terms
and conditions of the 2005 Agreement, the City Council should have been
provided with a copy of the 1990 agreement upon first assuming office
after being elected.
10. The Grand Jury could find no evidence that current or former city
employees or officials had ever seen the 1990 Agreement. From 1990 until
the Grand Jury received it, the 1990 Agreement apparently remained
inaccessible to all who asked if there was such an agreement. However,
when the Grand Jury requested this information through normal channels,
it was provided within seventy- two ( 72) hours. The Grand Jury finds that
this vital document was not provided to those who requested it, even
though they had a legal right to possess it.
11. Under City Council Resolution No. 0501- R ( Exhibit 3; hereinafter the
“ Salary Resolution”), passed by the City Council on January 4, 2005 and
still in effect on November 15, 2005, the vacant Assistant City Manager’s
position has an approved salary range of $ 7,635 - $ 9,162 per month, well
below the salary stated in paragraph 4 of the 2005 Agreement. If the City
Manager were placed in the Assistant City Manager position at a salary
higher than that authorized by the Salary Resolution, it would constitute a
violation of the city’s own Salary Resolution. This potential violation was
not corrected until the passage of City Council Resolution No. 06- 02- R,
which was not passed until January 3, 2006, more than six weeks after the
new agreement was signed.
12. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council did not have all the information
and documents it needed prior to its decision to enter into the 2005
Agreement to terminate the current City Manager.
13. The Grand Jury finds that the City Manager did not provide information to
the City Council to which it was entitled and which it needed to make an
informed and appropriate decision as to the terms and conditions of the
2005 Agreement.
14. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council, instead of exercising due
diligence in the pursuit of information which it needed in order to make a
proper and informed decision, relied on the uninformed assurances of
others.
15. The Grand Jury finds that the City Attorney, who has served since 1989,
failed in providing the City Council with the proper advice related to
compliance with the Brown Act.
16. The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk failed to follow up on requests
from City of Hanford officials for information which they needed
concerning the 1990 Agreement and the negotiations for the 2005
Agreement.
5
C. RALPH M. BROWN ACT ( CLOSED SESSIONS).
1. The Hanford City Council began holding a series of regular and special
closed sessions on July 19, 2005 to set up an evaluation process for
reviewing the job performance of the City Manager.
2. After several additional closed sessions held on August 16, 2005, August
29, 2005, September 7, 2005, September 13, 2005, September 21, 2005 ,
and on September 28, 2005, the City Council decided to terminate the City
Manager’ s employment with the City. For all meetings held through
September 28, 2005 the agenda item was correctly labeled as “ Performance
Evaluation Process ( GC 54957) – City Manager.”
3. It was also decided at the September 28, 2005 meeting to retain outside
counsel to guide the City Council in its negotiations with the City Manager.
As of the next meeting the item labeling “ Performance Evaluation Process
( GC 54957) – City Manager” became inappropriate under the Brown Act
because the discussions of performance had ended and a discussion of a
proposed termination settlement for the City Manager began. During
subsequent closed session meetings with its negotiator, the agenda item
identifying the closed sessions should have cited Government Code section
54957.6 and should have stated “ Negotiations with Unrepresented
Employee – City Manager”.
4. The agenda item labeling for all closed sessions was supplied by the City
Attorney.
5. Government Code § 54957( b)( 4)(“ Brown Act”) states explicitly, “ Closed
sessions held pursuant to this subdivision shall not include discussion or
action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation
that results from the imposition of discipline.” The Grand Jury finds that
when the City Council approved the 2005 Agreement, it clearly had no
intention of reducing compensation as a result of the imposition of
discipline. Therefore, since the agenda item identified the closed sessions
held subsequent to September 28, 2005 as “ Performance Evaluation
Process ( GC 54957) – City Manager”, all such meetings which included
discussions of compensation violated the Brown Act.
6. The Grand Jury finds that if the closed sessions held subsequent to
September 28, 2005 had been properly labeled as “ Negotiations with
Unrepresented Employee – City Manager” and had properly cited
Government Code section 54957.6, compensation could have been
discussed in closed session, but the City Council could not have taken final
action on such compensation in closed session. The Grand Jury further
finds that the 2005 Agreement was approved by the City Council in closed
session on November 15, 2005, and it was executed by both the Mayor and
the City Manager prior to the City Council returning to open session on that
same date. Therefore, it is clear that the City Council took final action on
6
the City Manager’s compensation in closed session in violation of the
Brown Act.
7. The Grand Jury finds that the Hanford City Council should have received
better guidance to insure they operated within the rules of the Brown Act.
8. The Grand Jury believes the City Council was attempting to act in a fair
and judicious matter.
D. EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS.
1. City Manager. As to the City Manager and the City Manager position the
Grand Jury finds all of the following:
( a) At no time has there been a formal evaluation and review
process in place for the person serving as City Manager.
( b) A formal annual evaluation and review process for the City
Manager is essential for the proper functioning of City government
but one has not been implemented by the City Council.
( c) While many discussions among many City Councils over
many years have taken place, thus far, no City Council has
established an annual review process for the City Manager.
( d) Without an established annual review process in place, the
City Council cannot measure the performance of the City Manager
from year to year.
( e) Without an established annual review process, the City
Manager will not have the opportunity to improve his or her
performance and to provide the kind of leadership which the City
needs.
( f) Until June 30, 2005, the City Council as a body expressed no
concerns about how the City Manager conducted city business.
( g) As of July 2005, the City Council decided to review the City
Manager’s performance.
( h) After years of benign neglect, the City Council apparently
agreed they should take control of the actions of the City Manager.
( i) Therefore, when the City Council decided it wanted to
terminate its relationship with the current City Manager, they had no
written evaluations from prior years to fall back on.
2. City Clerk. As to the City Clerk and the City Clerk position, the Grand
Jury finds all of the following:
( a) The City Clerk answers directly to the City Manager and in
addition serves as the City Manager’s secretary.
( b) Under the current system, the City Clerk is in the position of
having to serve two masters, the City Manager on one hand and the
City Council on the other.
7
( c) This system could, under certain circumstances, place the
City Clerk in the very difficult situation of having to decide whose
interest outweighs the other’s.
3. City Attorney. As to the City Attorney and the City Attorney position, the
Grand Jury finds all of the following:
( a) The current City Attorney has served the City of Hanford
since 1989.
( b) As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the performance of the
City Attorney has never been reviewed by the City Council.
E. MINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS.
1. The City Council does not keep minutes of its closed sessions in any form,
either written or recorded.
2. When asked to recall under oath what transpired at the closed sessions
regarding the City Manager’s situation, varying statements were made by
the witnesses as to what happened during those sessions.
3. The Grand Jury believes that each of these witnesses was doing his/ her very
best to recall actions and decisions made at these closed sessions
accurately. The passing of time since those closed sessions simply made
consistent and accurate recall extremely difficult.
4. Keeping recorded or written minutes would have greatly helped the
witnesses in giving their testimony.
F. PERSONNEL RECORDS.
1. At the present time personnel files are kept behind the receptionist’s desk in
the offices of the City Manager and City Clerk.
2. As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the files are left unlocked during
normal working hours.
3. During the course of an average working day, the files are left unattended
while city employees working in this area go about their business.
4. While these files are unattended, anyone, whether authorized or not, could
access these files.
5. There is no system for tracking documents removed from personnel files
for legitimate use within the office.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. The City Council should take whatever steps it deems appropriate and
necessary to ensure that when negotiating employment contracts with its
employees, it has access to all relevant documents, including, but not
8
limited to, the current contract and the employee’s prior written
evaluations.
2. The City Council should receive training on compliance with the Brown
Act and should take whatever additional steps it deems appropriate and
necessary to ensure that it receives appropriate advice from the City
Manager’s office and the City Attorney’s office related to compliance with
the Brown Act.
3. The City Council should establish and implement an annual performance
evaluation process for all employees and officers for which it has direct
hiring and firing authority, including, but not limited to, the City Manager,
the City Attorney and the City Clerk.
4. The City Council should keep written or recorded minutes of its closed
sessions.
5. The City Council should establish and implement an effective system for
ensuring the security and confidentiality of its personnel records.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS.
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond within 60 days to the findings and recommendations contained in this
report.
• Hanford City Council
9
HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
SYNOPSIS:
The Grand Jury received Request For Investigation from concerned citizens
regarding the operations of some cemeteries in Kings County. Under Penal
Code section 933.5 the Grand Jury is empowered to: investigate all branches
of county, city and special district government to be assured they are being
administered efficiently, honestly and in the best interests of its citizens and
to issue reports on the needs and operation of all the departments…
The Grand Jury visited the Hanford Cemetery where the Grand Jury was
impressed by the appearance of the grounds. Staff explained the operational
procedures that were utilized to manage the cemetery district. After the visit
the Grand Jury reviewed information received, including the blue bound
booklet that will be discussed further in this report, and questions some of
the information that they received from staff.
The complaints that were received contained concerns that some cemetery
district property was being converted to private use and that the management
of the cemetery district was inefficient, mismanaged, unsafe, and
discriminatory. After diligent investigation using documents provided by
the cemetery district, interviews with cemetery district employees, board
members, and other interviews many concerns were noted.
BACKGROUND:
Most of the people that the Grand Jury talked to either are or have been an
employee at the Hanford Cemetery District. Each employee expressed
contentment working there. In their own means of expression they showed
self- fulfillment by being in a position to help those that were in one of life’s
extreme traumas and mourning.
Employees made statements that they needed the Grand Jury’s help to
eliminate the suppression by management and some of the working
conditions that they were dealing with daily.
FINDINGS:
I. When visiting the Hanford Cemetery on 10/ 2/ 05, the Grand Jury was
given a blue bound booklet of information sheets. The report was read aloud
1
by a staff member and each point was expounded on and explained to the
Grand Jury.
1. It is the obligation of the Board of Trustees to see that the cemetery runs
properly. In reference to the Board of Trustees, the blue bound booklet
states, “ The Hanford Cemetery District has a five member Board of
Trustees who oversee the management of the District. They establish
policy and procedures required for the daily operation of the district
cemeteries. Their function is to receive and review complaints and inquires
( sic) from the public and advise the District Manager.” The Grand Jury
finds that it is the obligation of the Board of Trustees to be accountable for
the operation of the Hanford Cemetery District. They can delegate some of
the responsibilities of the operation but not their control. It is vital that
such a small district board is open to the employees.
1. A statement is made, “ The District Manager visits each cemetery a
minimum of eight times per day to assure smooth operation and advise
the foreman of any work requirements that need to be handled”. In this
book it states the Cemetery District consists of Calvary, Hanford,
Lakeside, and Kings River Cemeteries. This statement was not only
written in the booklet but was read to this Grand Jury. None of the
people the Grand Jury interviewed could remember any more than one
funeral at the Lakeside and Kings River cemeteries within the last ten
years.
II. The Grand Jury finds that the management staff has been disrespectful to
families of deceased members on numerous occasions. Public relations are
paramount in this type of business because you are dealing with people
under much emotional distress.
III. One of the concerns the Grand Jury has is in regards to safety and the
lack of shoring equipment utilized by the cemetery district.
a) The Grand Jury finds that California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ( Cal- OSHA) regulation 1541.1 Requirements for Protective
Systems states:
“( a) Protection of employees in excavations.
( 1) Each employee in an excavation shall be protected
from cave- ins by an adequate protective system designed in
accordance with Section 1541.1( b) or ( c) except when:
( A) Excavations are made entirely in stable rock or
2
( B) Excavations are less than 5 feet in depth and examination
of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a
potential cave- in”.
The Grand Jury was informed during their on- site visit to Hanford Cemetery
that the employees used plywood and 2X4 timbers to shore the grave
excavations, but no one was able to show the Grand Jury members this
equipment. In a Cemetery Board meeting where two ( 2) members of the
Grand Jury were present the Board was informed that cemeteries were
exempt from any shoring requirements. When the Grand Jury asked for the
documentation on the exemptions for shoring requirements for cemeteries,
the Grand Jury was provided with a copy of Cal- OSHA’s exemption for
excavation in stable rock. There is no stable rock on the San Joaquin Valley
floor per Kings County Public Works engineers.
b) The Grand Jury did not observe any use of hearing protect
tion by the employees of the cemetery district and the district could be
opening themselves for hearing loss claims.
c) The Grand Jury did not observe an eye wash station at the Hanford
Cemetery and questions if there is one available while the employees are
working at the Calvary, Lakeside, and/ or Kings River sites.
d) The Grand Jury observed during its visit that the safety and employee
rights postings were old, outdated, and very difficult to read and find. These
postings were placed behind cemetery equipment. The Grand Jury has since
been told that the posters at Hanford Cemetery were updated and placed on
the refrigerator after the visit but there were no postings at all at Calvary
Cemetery. The Grand Jury was told that there was no need for posters at
both sites because the foremen and/ or leadmen came to Hanford Cemetery
twice a week for staff meetings, which does not adequately inform the other
employees as to their rights or safety matters.
e) The Grand Jury questioned staff during their on- site visit regarding
safety meetings and was told that they were held once a month. However,
the newest, recently written revision to the Board policies that the Grand
Jury received in the mail five ( 5) weeks after the request was made, states
that safety meetings will be held every six ( 6) months.
f) Equipment training is lacking in adequate supervision. It is not in the
best interest of the employees to take large equipment out on their lunch
hour and teach themselves to operate cemetery equipment. This policy, or
lack thereof, could be an explanation for the high cost of repairs to Cemetery
District equipment and employees should not be blamed.
g) Employees working at remote sites have no access to District owned
cellular phones.
3
IV. The next concern this Grand Jury had was in the area of employee
relations. Using the aforementioned authority ( Penal Code 933.5) and the
same methods of investigation we noted the following:
a) The Board policy manual states that the District Manager is to maintain
good relations with the employees. It is the findings of the Grand Jury there
are strained relations between management and staff.
b) The Grand Jury has found that management has made discriminatory
remarks on several occasions. These types of remarks should not be made at
all even in jest.
c) The Grand Jury finds that management has engaged in inappropriate
personal behavior. This is unprofessional behavior and should not occur.
d) Witnesses report that management undercuts the authority and
credibility of some of the foremen. Management will frequently change the
employee work assignments after the work orders were received by the
foremen. Management will wait until jobs are assigned by the foremen and
then go directly to the employees and tell them to do something different and
deny asking the foremen to assign the original task.
e) Employees are intimidated and in fear of losing their jobs if they voice
any concerns to the Board or this Grand Jury. Several potential witnesses
expressed fear over their employment if management discovered they were
unhappy. Employees are not only discouraged from voicing concerns and
complaints to the Cemetery Board, but are openly prevented from doing so.
It is impossible for employees to voice complaints to the board with the
present system of having the District Manager:
( 1) Take the minutes of all meetings
( 2) Set all items to be presented to the board
( 3) Present the complaining employee to the board
( 4) Require the employee to obtain the District Manager’s permission to
address the board.
The Grand Jury finds that employees may have been disciplined and
retaliated against for making complaints. Indeed, it was noted after
appearing before the Grand Jury several employees were singled out for
criticism with regard to their job performance in subsequent minutes of the
Board of Trustee meetings.
f) Employees do not know about grievance procedures because the new
procedures have not been provided to them.
g) Overtime is another point of contention for the employees. It is not
assigned on an equal basis.
h) The Board’s policy states that employees will have an annual pay
increase, but some employees have had no increase for three ( 3) or more
4
years. Some employees have been told that there is no money in the budget
for increases while others have received pay increases. This is not an
evenhanded way to manage employee pay raises. The binder that was
distributed to the Grand Jury states that each employee is given a yearly
performance evaluation and raises are based on this evaluation. Some
employees have not had an evaluation for several years as evidenced by
employee provided records.
i) Employee evaluations are made with no input from their direct
supervisor/ foreman.
j) The Grand Jury found some part time employees are receiving vacation
and holiday pay against Board policy.
V. This Grand Jury is concerned about the potential for abuses in the area of
some expenditures.
a) One of them is fuel and the lack of locking devices on the four fuel tanks
to deter unauthorized usage. There is no measuring equipment on the tanks
to measure the amount of fuel being dispensed or remaining in the tanks.
Gravity flow measuring equipment can be purchased for under $ 200.00
each. An accounting procedure should be initiated to record fuel usage for
each piece of equipment. All indications are that as fuel prices increase
more fuel is being purchased. The increase in fuel purchases is being made
without any changes in operation. The Grand Jury is puzzled as to why.
b) Card/ lock fuel purchases are used to purchase gasoline for the District
Manager’s District vehicle. The Grand Jury requested random warrants for
the period between 6/ 8/ 05 and 10/ 13/ 05. The Grand Jury noted that omitted
in the billings were vehicle numbers, odometer readings, and miles per
gallon. Of the nine ( 9) warrants pulled in the item above, Board members
signed only three ( 3). The other six ( 6) warrants were approved by only the
District Manager and not by any of the Board of Trustees. It should also be
noted that fuel delivered to the two ( 2) District locations is more expensive
than fuel being bought at one of the card/ lock stations.
c) When this Grand Jury visited the Hanford Cemetery on 10/ 2/ 05, we were
told there were four credit cards used to make purchases. The cards
consisted of: Smart and Final, The Home Depot, Staples, and Orchard
Supply Hardware. The Grand Jury requested six ( 6) random warrants from
the period of 6/ 13/ 05 through 9/ 15/ 05 for our review. The Grand Jury found
that of those six ( 6) warrants Board of Trustees had signed only two ( 2) for
approval. The other four ( 4) contained only the signature of the District
Manager. The person making the purchase should not be the only person
approving the purchase. This might give the appearance of impropriety.
5
d) This Grand Jury found no evidence that an auditing procedure was used
to verify the merchandise bought was received and used at the Cemetery
District.
e) The Grand Jury questioned the finance charges on two of the billings
( Staples and OSH).
f) The statement from Orchard Supply Hardware was not under the name
of the Cemetery District but was under the name of an employee.
VI. The Board Policy Book is completely outdated and our findings are that
it should be revised.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Board of Trustees should be fully accountable for the operation of
the Hanford Cemetery District.
2. The Board of Trustees should update the Board Policies and adhere to the
same policies. All documents should be dated.
3. The Board of Trustees should curtail the eight ( 8) daily visits to each
cemetery, especially the Lakeside and Kings River Cemeteries.
4. The Management and staff should be aware of the needs of bereaved
families and more aware of good public relations.
5. Shoring equipment should be used at every gravesite excavation of 5” or
more, per Cal- OSHA requirements.
6. The Board of Trustees should provide all employees with and require the
use of hearing protection.
7. The Board of Trustees should provide an eyewash station at all locations
when and where legally required, including outlying cemetery locations.
8. The Board of Trustees should provide the employees that are working at
a remote site with a cell phone to use in case of emergency.
9. The Board of Trustees should place, maintain and update safety
information as well as employee rights information at all locations that have
permanent employees.
10. The Board of Trustees should consider holding safety meetings more
than semi- annually. A more realistic schedule would be a minimum of
every other month.
11. The Board of Trustees should establish a training program to teach
employees to use the equipment that does not include them “ going out back
on their lunch hour and digging holes”.
12. The Board of Trustees should institute a method for the employees to
voice complaints and concerns to them directly.
6
13. The Board of Trustees should review the Kings County Employee
Handbook and should create and provide a similar one for District
employees, which includes explanations of benefits and grievance
procedures. A signed dated receipt should be required of each employee.
14. The Board of Trustees should establish a fair and impartial policy of
assigning overtime so that all employees may be included.
15. The Board of Trustees should confirm that annual performance
evaluations are conducted and appropriate pay increases awarded.
16. The Board of Trustees should install measuring devices and locks on all
fuel tanks. They should also initiate an accounting procedure for recording
fuel usage.
17. The Board of Trustees should adopt a procedure of buying most fuel
with a card/ lock if and when it is economically advantageous to do so.
18. The Board of Trustees should require odometer reading, vehicle
numbers and miles per gallon be listed on all card/ lock purchases.
19. The Board of Trustees should require more than one signature on all
warrants and require that the purchaser not be one of the signers.
20. The Board of Trustees should institute a procedure whereby purchases
are checked to insure that all the order has arrived and is being used in the
proper manner.
21. The Board of Trustees should review all part time employee pay records
to determine if improper wages were paid for vacation or holiday.
22. The Board of Trustees should audio record all Board of Trustees
meetings and hold the recordings for 6 months before destroying.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 ( c) the following agency is
required to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this
report within 90 days.
􀂃 Hanford Cemetery District Board of Trustees
7
Attachments:
Copy of Blue Bound Booklet handed out to the Grand Jury on their visit
October 2, 2005.
( All personal identifying information has been deleted from this
attachment.)
Copy of Kings County Employee Handbook dated June 2005
8
ADDENDUM TO REPORT BY THE 2005- 2006
GRAND JURY REPORT ON
THE HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
The Hanford Cemetery District responded to the preliminary report on the
Cemetery District issued by the Kings County Grand Jury on January 18, 2006.
The Grand Jury wishes to clarify some of its findings and some of the misleading
responses by the Cemetery District.
1. The Board response stated, “ The Board also takes exception to the manner
in which they were interrogated by the Grand Jury at the District Attorney’s
office. The Grand Jury would like to point out that the Grand Jury
scheduled the appointment for the interviews with the Board members at
the convenience of the Board members. The Grand Jury gave the Board a
list of 5 ( five) possible dates to conduct the interviews. The Board chose
the date that was convenient to them. The Grand Jury requested the use of
the District Attorney’s office in order to keep from inconveniencing the
Board members. There was never at any time the intention to “ interrogate”
the Board members but to simply gather information. The interviews
proved very useful to the Grand Jury, in spite of the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the incident that the Board refers to in its response
concerning rude and demanding remarks did happen. What the Board fails
to mention in its response is that another member of the Grand Jury was
there and immediately apologized to the Board member and the entire
Board and quickly assured the Board that the Grand Jury did not work in
that fashion and had no intention of directing the Sheriff or anyone else to
compel their cooperation.
2. The Board responded that “ the Grand Jury was not willing to listen to its
responses during the interview process and made its findings and reached
its conclusions based entirely upon what the complaining witnesses told
them.”
The Grand Jury not only listened to what each Board member had to say
but even wrote down each and every response and has that record in its
files. Each Board member responded to the exact same questions. The
Grand Jury referred to those responses in not only writing its report but for
this addendum as well.
3. The Board responded, “ The Report clearly implied that the Board and/ or its
management staff were ‘ stealing’ from the District and the public.” That
was not the intention of the Grand Jury nor did the Grand Jury wish to
47
imply that the Board or management was “ stealing”. What the report said
was, “ The Grand Jury is concerned about the potential for abuses in the
area of some expenditures” ( italics and underline added). It was the desire
and intention of the Grand Jury to assist the Board in protecting itself from
the appearance of impropriety.
4. Quoting from its response, the Board states, “ The District Board is open
and available to all the District employees.” The interviews conducted by
the Grand Jury with the members of the District Board indicated otherwise.
Our interviews found that 3 ( three) out of the 5 ( five) Board members flatly
stated that they would have NO contact with employees of the District. The
Grand Jury recommended that all the Board members be available to
District employees-- not the minority of its members.
5. The Board’s response to the District Manager visiting each cemetery a
minimum of eight times a day states, “ When the Grand Jury questioned the
Board about the quoted statement, the Grand Jury was told that it was
misprint and that obviously the District Manager cannot visit each of the
four cemeteries eight times a day.” When the Grand Jury was provided
with the blue bound booklet the District Manager read aloud each and every
page with the vice- chairman of the Board present. Neither of them
corrected this statement. When the Grand Jury interviewed the Board
members the responses to that particular question ranged from, “ I’m sure he
does” to “ That’s must be a misprint”.
6. The Board response concerning the number of funerals per year at Lakeside
and Kings River cemeteries averaging two to three a year does not appear
consistent with the Grand Jury’s field observation of only 3 ( three) possible
burials at Kings River since 2000 and only 1 ( one) possible at Lakeside.
7. The Board responded that it investigated the finding that “ management staff
has been disrespectful to families of deceased members on numerous
occasions” and determined that “ District management staff had not been
discourteous or disrespectful of families or friends of the deceased on any
occasion, let alone on numerous occasions.” The Grand Jury would like to
know the Board’s method of investigating this finding. Our investigation
indicated otherwise.
8. “ The Board acknowledges the requirement for shoring in graves that
exceed sixty inches in depth. The District will contact other districts in the
area to determine what is the best method of providing such shoring and
shall provide it in the future.” The Grand Jury finds that the District should
be contacting Cal- OSHA not other districts for Cal- OSHA requirements.
This shoring should be implemented immediately not in the future since
approximately one- half of the graves are 60” or deeper according to the
District’s own staff.
9. The Board investigated the assertion that the employees were trained by
sending employees out on their lunch hour to learn by trial and error and
48
did not determine this to be true. The Grand Jury arrived at this finding by
witness interviews stating that all employees desiring training on the back-hoe
were told to use their lunch hour to teach themselves by digging and
refilling holes in the back portion of the cemetery.
10. “ The Board will establish a policy that employees working at remote sites
without telephone service will have access to either a personal cellular
phone or a District- owned cellular phone.” The Grand Jury responds that
personal cell phones should not be required for communication on
company time unless the District will a pay a portion of the employee’s
bill.
11. The Board stated that it investigated the finding that “… after appearing
before the Grand Jury several employees were singled out for criticism
with regard to their job performance in subsequent minutes of the Board of
Trustee meetings.” And found “ the District Manager has done nothing to
intimidate employees or to…” One of the District Board members stated to
the Grand Jury that they were aware that the District Manager did write a
reprimand on one employee for addressing concerns directly to the Board.
The Grand Jury noted that the minutes of the Board meetings reflect
criticism of employees that appeared in front of this Grand Jury and the
criticism appears directly after their appearance. The Grand Jury does not
believe this was coincidence.
12. The Board stated, “ There has been no such increase in fuel consumption”
in response to the Grand Jury’s findings that “ All indications are that as
fuel prices increase more fuel is being purchased. The increase in fuel
purchases is being made without any changes in operation.” The Grand
Jury requested and received invoices indicating increases fuel
consumption. The Board has access to these same invoices.
The Board states it “ is unaware of the cost of gravity- flow measuring
devices” yet the Grand Jury was able to obtain this information with only
one visit to Silva’s Oil.
13. In regard to the Grand Jury finding concerning card/ lock fuel purchases,
lack of vehicle numbers, odometer readings, and miles per gallon
information on invoices as well as increased cost of delivered fuel vs. fuel
bought at card/ lock locations, the Board does not disagree. The Grand Jury
would like to know what action will be taken and when.
14. The Board does not disagree with the Grand Jury finding concerning only
the signature of the purchaser on the warrant to be paid appearing to be
improper. The Grand Jury would like to know what action will be taken
and when.
15. “ The Board does not disagree with the finding that the Grand Jury did not
find an auditing procedure.” The Grand Jury would like to know what
action will be taken and when.
49
16. “ The Board disagreed with the finding that the OSH credit card account is
in the name of a District employee. All four of the District’s credit card
accounts are in the name of the District with the manager’s name for ID
purchasing.” The Grand Jury is concerned that when the Board members
were interviewed three members of the Board were unaware of any District
credit cards and two members thought that the credit cards were kept in the
office, not carried by the District Manager in his wallet. All 5 ( five)
members thought that all warrants were approved by the Board but the
Grand Jury obtained warrants from the District that had only the signature
of the District Manager.
17. The Board disagrees with the finding that the Board Policy Book is
completely outdated and that it should be revised.” The Grand Jury wishes
to cite just a few examples that led to the conclusion that the Policy Book
needs revision. The Board Policy Book that the Grand Jury was provided
contained an outline of the office manager’s duties. There is no longer an
office manager only a clerk. The Policy Book speaks of the District
Superintendent instead of a District Manager, it calls for a 3 ( three) member
Board instead of the present 5 ( five) member board, it clearly states that the
Board Members are to receive no compensation vs. the $ 50.00 per meeting
now in place. These are just a few examples of the Policy Book being old
and outdated.
COMMENT:
The Grand Jury would like to assure the District Board that it is not their intention
to harass or accuse any of the Board members. It is the intention of the Grand Jury
to point out areas that the Grand Jury feels would help improve the services
provided to the public. The Grand Jury would like to assist the District Board
Members in avoiding all appearance of impropriety in order to spare the members
the embarrassment and inconvenience of defending themselves when it could be
avoided. The public has little thought for the District except in the worst of
circumstances. The Grand Jury acknowledges that the job of the District Board is
largely difficult and unrewarded.
RESPONSE TO ADDENDUM:
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 933.05 the following agency is
required to respond to this addendum to the report.
• Hanford Cemetery District Board of Trustees
50
FIRST 5 OF KINGS COUNTY
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury appreciates the work and effort that First 5 has
expended toward improving services to the children 0- 5 of Kings County.
Additional opportunities for growth have been provided by the seven ( 7) Family
Resource Centers (“ FRC’s”) located in Armona, Corcoran, Hanford ( 2), Home
Garden, Kettleman City and Lemoore.
As stated in the First 5 Kings County Report to the Community:
First 5 Kings County Children and Families Commission was
established as a result of the passage of Proposition 10 which
levied a $. 50 sales tax on all tobacco products. The majority of
the revenues generated by this tax is distributed to local
commissions to fund services to children and their families.
Each county commission is tasked with establishing where
funding will be most effective. First 5 Kings County Children
and Families Commission has set forth a number of Local
Initiatives to best address the needs of children and families of
Kings County. The Local Initiatives include: Family Resource
Centers, Childcare Accreditation, Children’s Health, School
Readiness and Special Projects. All services funded through
First 5 Kings County fall within one of these areas and seek to
provide considerable impact through identified strategic result
areas.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury’s authority to investigate is pursuant to California
Penal Code § 925 which states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the
operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of the
county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative
district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the
officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity of the districts.”
51
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
The Kings County Grand Jury investigated as a follow up to the 2004- 2005 Grand
Jury report.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted, visitations made and documents researched.
FINDINGS:
1. The Consent For Release of Information and Authorization To Refer To
Community Resources form is written in English on one side and Spanish
on the back side. The required signatures are on the English side even
when the client speaks only Spanish.
2. First 5 staff visits to Family Resource Centers are structured with an agenda
created by the First 5 staff.
3. Most communication initiated by First 5 is via e- mail.
4. Even with the extensive effort made by First 5 to inform the Kings County
community of the programs available, the message is not getting out.
5. Many Family Resource Center staff members are not properly trained in the
use of the computer program and in the creation and retrieval of required
reports.
6. In reviewing the financial statement provided by the Accounting
Department of Kings County, the Kings County Grand Jury found that
more than 23% of the First 5 income from the State was expended for
administrative costs. This amount is calculated on the figures provided by
the county as to administrative costs. First 5 includes grants the State of
California mandates be distributed directly by First 5, and First 5 has no
discretion in the expenditure of these funds, thus lowering the percentage of
administrative costs-- First 5 is strictly a pass through agency on behalf of
the State of California for those funds. This makes it appear that
administrative costs are lower than they actually would be based strictly on
funds allocated directly to First 5.
7. Prospective grantees have reported difficulty with the grant application
process used by First 5. It creates barriers for worthy agencies applying for
funds. In researching First 5 websites from other counties we find
significant help with the application process which is not available through
Kings County First 5. One very successful and viable FRC recently
severed ties with First 5 because of the difficulty of dealing with the ever-changing
requirements of the local agency.
8. The current Grand Jury continues to be concerned about the makeup of the
First 5 Commission. The Grand Jury agrees that the appointments made by
52
the Board of Supervisors were “ lawful” ( per response to the 2004- 2005
Kings County Grand Jury Report) but question their appropriateness ( per
response to the 2004- 2005 Kings County Grand Jury Report). It would
obviously be beneficial both to the community and the Commission to have
input from recipients of the services provided by First 5.
9. Financial pressure by First 5 caused Family NetworKings to dissolve,
eliminating the assistance to the FRC’s in finding and writing grants and
facilitating meetings among the FRC directors.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. All forms should be printed in both English and Spanish with self carbonized
paper used as needed. Signatures should be on the same side of the form which
includes the written answers.
2. Informal visits should be made by First 5 staff ( including the Executive
Director) to the FRC’s. There should not always be an agenda but be an
opportunity for Directors to express their needs for help.
3. Communication should be a two way person- to- person relationship which
promotes questions and a better understanding.
4. Special emphasis should be placed on creating additional outreach for potential
clients and their families, such as:
a. Public announcements should be made on radio and television stations
( both Spanish and English). These would be of help in communicating the
services and programs available to Kings County residents.
b. Flyers should be written in both English and Spanish using words that are
easily understood. These should be made available at churches, doctor’s
offices, etc.
c. All communications should make clear that the programs are for all
children 0- 5, regardless of income.
5. A more effective program of in- service training should be developed for
computer program use and form completion.
6. More money should be spent on funding programs than on administration costs.
7. Find ways to fund worthy projects, not throwing up artificial roadblocks which
encourage applicants to withdraw from the First 5 application process.
8. It is the Kings County Grand Jury’s recommendation that private citizens be
added to the First 5 Commission. It would obviously be beneficial to both the
community and to the Commission to have input from beneficiaries of the
services to be provided by First 5. Other counties have done this with much
success. Examples include Inyo, Glenn, Lake, Monterey and Siskiyou.
9. First 5 should establish a system to help the FRC’s with writing grants. This
could be accomplished by locating grant writing firms and sharing the
information or by developing an “ in house” grant writing system.
53
COMMENTS:
An article from the San Diego Union Tribune dated June 11, 2006 stated:
The agency established by Reiner’s previous initiative [ Prop. 10,
The California Children and Families Act] has spent $ 230 million on
advertising and public relations consultants since it was established
in 1999. The Legislature has talked about fixing First 5. Forcing the
agency to spend its money directly on helping kids would be a great
first step.
The continued scrutiny of the $ 700 million bureaucracy created by the poorly
drafted Prop 10 is an invitation for waste and fraud. First 5 at the state level is
currently under investigation and an audit is due to be completed in late August
First 5 Kings County needs to set the highest possible standards for the wise use of
funds to benefit the children of Kings County.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
• Kings County Board of Supervisors
54
KINGS WASTE AND RECYLING AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTION:
The Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (“ KWRA”) was formed in 1989 as a
Joint Powers Authority (“ JPA”) in order to comply with California Integrated
Waste Management Act ( the “ Act”; California Public Resources Code § 40000 et
seq). The JPA consists of Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford and unincorporated Kings
County., The Act requires all California cities, counties and regional agencies,
such as KWRA, to reduce the amount of garbage ( in the form of recyclable
material), going to local landfills, by 50% by the year 2000.
At the present time, Kings County is at approximately 47% of the state recycling
goal. It is anticipated that the 50% goal will be achieved when the Lemoore
recycling program begins later this year. There is a consideration that the State of
California will raise this requirement to 75% in the near future.
Avenal elected not to join when the JPA was formed and reports its recycling data
and diversion percentage directly to the California Integrated Waste Management
Board.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
The Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of KWRA for an orientation brief
and a tour of the entire facility. In addition, the Grand Jury met with a
representative from the Hanford Public Works Department and a member of the
Hanford City Council.
FINDINGS:
1. The Material Recovery Facility (“ MRF”) opened on November 21, 1995.
KWRA receives no subsidies from JPA cities and receives no tax dollars.
KWRA processes all municipal waste collected within the JPA and hand-sorts
recyclable material from the waste stream. KWRA acts as a transfer
station for residue being transferred to the landfill at Chemical Waste
Management near Kettleman City. KWRA has a 16- acre composting
operation which processes green waste collected in the green waste
recycling bins in the three member cities, and material delivered directly to
55
the KWRA site by individual householders. City garbage is collected
Monday through Friday and is delivered to KWRA’S 92,000 square foot
MRF. Material is deposited on the floor and either pushed to the “ main
line” for hand- separated recyclable material collection or delivered to a
staging area for transfer to the landfill. Material staged for transfer without
sorting is contaminated with everything from water treatment plant sludge,
raw food waste, dairy waste and other contaminants. A small percentage of
material received in clear plastic bags is recovered because it is easily
identified as recyclable. Material delivered in black bags, or other bags,
that cannot be seen through, goes directly to the staging area for transfer to
landfill.
2. No local tax money goes to this operation— grants and the sale of
recyclables provide a small percentage of their income. The major source
of the income to KWRA is tipping fees.
3. The KWRA has been operating profitably only for the last two years.
4. The original cost of starting the KWRA was $ 12.5 million dollars and the
bond taken out to finance this will be paid off in 2014.
5. The entire plant design was made to process the yellow bag recycling
program. This program failed because of lack of a commitment by
leadership, lack of education of the public and lack of enforcement
mandates.
6. A five ( 5) member board of directors does most of the decision making.
Two members are from the Kings County Board of Supervisors, and one
city council member from the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Lemoore.
7. The KWRA Executive Director is in charge of the plant’s operational
procedures but does not have enforcement power.
8. The last time that tipping fees were raised by KWRA was in the year 2002
but the cost to some residents has increased several times due to fee
increases imposed by their respective cities.
9. Green waste dumping fees were reduced 50% ($ 70.00 per ton to $ 35.00 a
ton) several years ago but the savings was not passed on to the residents.
10. Recycled items are sold to the highest bidder daily with about one half sent
to American companies and the other half sent to foreign companies.
11. It is believed that about 70% of the 400 to 450 tons received daily are
recyclable but with the present operation only about 30% is recycled. For
example, in May 2006, the daily average was 435 tons therefore, only 91
tons were recycled daily with an estimated 213 recyclable tons going into a
landfill each day.
12. a) From 7/ 1/ 03 through 6/ 30/ 04 120,059.95 tons of waste was
processed.
b) From 7/ 1/ 04 to 6/ 30/ 05 127,413.95 tons of waste was processed.
This leaves a total increase of 7,354 tons ( 6.13%) more than a year
earlier.
56
c) It is estimated from 7/ 1/ 05 to 6/ 30/ 06 that 136,072.69 tons of waste
will be processed. This is an increase of 8,658.74 tons ( 6.8%) over the
previous year.
13. The general public can buy the green waste compost for $ 15.00 ( fifteen
dollars) per cubic yard.
SCHOOL BIN RECYCLING PROGRAM
The School site Source Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program Act
( California Public Resources Code § § 42630 through 42647) requires that each
school board have a recyclable program. The bill which passed on February 21,
2001 stated “ The bill would require each school district, by July 1, 2004, to adopt
a resolution committing the district to implement the SWRP ( school waste
reduction plan) and would require each school district by July 1, 2006 to
commence the full implementation of the SWRP.” A total of 20% ( twenty
percent) of the money received by selling the recyclables in each school’s program
is returned to the school by KWRA. Each school’s principal is accountable for the
location of the recyclable bin, the clean up around the bin, and notification to the
KWRA that the bin is full and needs to be emptied. All recyclable items can be
placed in the bin and will be separated at the KWRA.
The school bin recycling program is at the present time the most efficient program
in operation in Hanford and yet according to the senate bill introduction “ after
more than 20 years, just 40 percent of the school districts have paper recycling
programs… The bill would require a school district, when designing and
constructing new public school facilities, to allocate adequate space for the safe
collection, storage and loading of recyclable materials and to incorporate the use
of recycled materials in the construction of new public school facilities.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recycling training programs to be presented to the students at schools with
recyclable bins.
2. The Kings County Grand Jury highly recommends that the semi- annual
check issued to the schools should be made out to the individual school’s
Associated Student Body to be used as a reward to the students during that
school year.
3. All planning departments in Kings County should require all new
businesses to allow space for a recyclable bin on their property or within
their complex.
4. All KWRA recyclable bins should be marked with a telephone number for
anyone to call and notify them that the bin is full and should be picked up.
57
5. The Kings County Grand Jury recommends that once a month, for at least
six months, advertisements in the various areas that KWRA serves list what
is recyclable material and where the recyclable and “ E” ( electronic)- waste
bins are located.
6. At least six times a year the KWRA should be open for the general public
to take waste material at no cost.
7. There should be an incentive ( perhaps in the form of reduced monthly
rates) offered to existing businesses, apartment complexes, and mobile
home parks to provide space for a recyclable bin for a period of time. This
incentive should only be in effect for a firm period of time and then
available space should be made mandatory after that time.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Act requires counties to go to a recyclable program. It is a law-- NOT AN
OPTION.
The initial cost of starting as well as training the general public to accept the third
can recyclable program will be time- consuming and costly. The outcome after the
program is in operation will be lower future trash removal costs, fewer landfills
and reduced usage of the world’s natural resources. We should not let political
decisions regarding recycling interfere with future generations’ existence.
Leadership, education, and enforcement with the city, county, and school officials
will ensure a smooth transition and make sure that the program will be successful.
WITHOUT THIS FIRM COOPERATION THE PROGRAM WILL FAIL!
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
• Board of Directors for KWRA
58
CITY OF HANFORD WASTE AND RECYCLING
PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION:
The Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (“ KWRA”) was formed in 1989 as a
Joint Powers Authority (“ JPA”) in order to comply with California Integrated
Waste Management Act ( the “ Act”; California Public Resources Code § 40000 et
seq). The JPA consists of Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford and parts of
unincorporated Kings County. The Act requires all California cities, counties or
regional jurisdictions, such as KWRA, to reduce the amount of garbage ( in the
form of recyclable material) going to local landfills by 50% by the year 2000.
At the present time, Kings County is at approximately 47% of the state recycling
goal. It is anticipated that the 50% goal will be achieved when the City of
Lemoore recycling program begins later this year. There is a consideration that the
State of California will raise this requirement to 75% in the near future.
Avenal elected not to join when the JPA was formed and reports their recycling
data and diversion percentage directly to the California Integrated Waste
Management Board.
Since it is very hard to report on the KWRA and not include others in the
investigation and findings, the Grand Jury has chosen to issue a report on the City
of Hanford’s efforts to manage waste and to recycle usable materials.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
The Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of KWRA for an orientation brief
and a tour of the entire facility. In addition, the Grand Jury met with a
representative from the Hanford Public Works Department and a member of the
Hanford City Council.
FINDINGS:
1. City of Hanford’s recycling program of separating green waste from
household waste has become very successful.
59
2. Hanford City trash pickup trucks have lights inside the truck bays so that
the driver can see what is being dumped from each resident’s trash barrel.
3. Hanford City trash pickup trucks have cameras inside the truck bays to
record improper dumping from each resident’s trash barrel.
4. Fines for improper dumping in the trash barrels in the City of Hanford are
added to the residents’ water bill.
5. Only trash trucks being loaded from the side take the trash to the KWRA
for possible recycling.
6. Trash from trucks loaded from the rear or front is taken to the KWRA to be
loaded onto trucks and taken directly to the landfill for burial.
7. It is believed that 70% of commercial trash is recyclable but at the present
time 0% is processed for recycling. However, some of the large retail
stores have invested in equipment, maintenance and labor costs to compact
and resell for profit their waste cardboard. This shows that additional
enforcement by the City of Hanford in recycling cardboard could be a
monetary advantage to the city.
8. There are no recyclable bins at any apartment complexes or mobile home
parks. All trash picked up at these locations is loaded onto trucks for burial
in the landfill.
9. Hanford has no requirement that recyclable bins be available for use by any
businesses.
10. It is estimated that not more than 10% of recyclables are from the Hanford
City waste stream.
11. Only clear plastic bags where the contents can be seen will be opened for
possible recycling.
12. The City of Hanford does have a program in which businesses can place
clean waste cardboard next to their trash bin and it will be picked up
weekly. The program began in 2002. Since the start of the program the
cardboard tonnage pick up has been less each year after the first year. For
example:
a) in 2003 192.53 tons were recycled
b) in 2004 161.73 tons were recycled
c) in 2005 130.75 tons were recycled
In this period of time new growth in businesses has occurred yet total recyclable
cardboard pickup was reduced.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City of Hanford to encourage the school districts to expand recycling
training programs to the students at schools with recyclable bins.
60
2. All Planning Departments in Kings County should require all new
businesses to allow space for a recyclable bin on their property or within
their complex.
3. There should be an incentive ( perhaps in the form of reduced monthly
rates) offered to existing businesses, apartment complexes, and mobile
home parks in the city to provide space for a recyclable bin for a period of
time. This incentive will only be in effect for a firm period of time and
then mandatory after that time.
4. The Kings County Grand Jury believes that an action committee should be
appointed with residents outside of government authority to:
a) Study the present city trash operations and recommend to the
Hanford City Council any improvements that could reduce costs and
improve service.
b) Present a recommendation to the City of Hanford adopting a third
can recycling program. The study should include findings of:
1. Using the existing black trash barrel for recyclables and
providing a much smaller new third barrel for household waste.
2. A study of the comparable cost and efficiency advantage for
all Hanford residents using city operated versus a private
contractor.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Act requires all counties to implement an effective recyclable program. It is a
law-- NOT AN OPTION.
The initial cost of starting as well as training the general public to accept the third
can recyclable program will be time- consuming and costly. The outcome after the
program is in operation will be lower future trash removal costs, fewer landfills
and reduced usage of the world’s natural resources. We should not let politics
interfere with future generations’ existence.
Leadership, education, and enforcement with the city, county, and school officials
will ensure a smooth transition and make sure the program will be successful.
WITHOUT THIS FIRM COOPERATION THE PROGRAM WILL FAIL!
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:
• Hanford City Council
61
THE DEMISE OF FORT ROOSEVELT
SYNOPSIS:
2005- 2006 Kings County Grand Jury received several requests to investigate the
closing of Fort Roosevelt. This had been a viable and ongoing classroom for
Kings County children since the 1960’ s. A letter was received by “ families and
friends of Fort Roosevelt” on October 17, 2004 from the Hanford Elementary
School Superintendent’s Office that stated that the Fort was to be temporarily
closed because of unsafe conditions and they would “ work diligently to find a way
to solve this problem.”
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Public outcry about the sudden announcement in the Hanford Sentinel dated June
2, 2005 regarding the closing of Fort Roosevelt.
AUTHORITY:
Our authority is pursuant to § § 933.5 and 933.6 of the California Penal Code as to
the investigation of the method or system of performing the duties of a school
district or a non- profit corporation acting on behalf of a school district.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted, documents researched, and a site visit was made.
PART ONE: Timeline regarding closing of Fort Roosevelt
08- 02- 04 Letter from architect warning HESD Superintendent’s Office of safety
concerns about the walls surrounding the Fort and the Board’s
personal liability exposure.
10- 13- 04 HESD Board of Trustees was warned that the condition of the Fort
was not good and that it presented a liability problem.
10- 17- 04 Letter to parents and friends telling of temporary closing.
10- 20- 04 Fort Roosevelt Board assigns collection to California State University,
Fresno.
12- 13- 04 HESD received letter from second architect confirming that poles at
the Fort were in bad condition.
02- 07- 05 Letter from CSUF to Fort personnel acknowledging acceptance of the
Fort Roosevelt Museum collection.
03- 09- 05 The HESD Superintendent’s Office reported to HESD Board of
Trustees that the Fort Roosevelt Board had appointed CSUF to restore
the collection with approximately $ 10,000 in shared costs.
04- 26- 05 HESD Superintendent’s Office letter to CSUF regarding collection
and telling of scheduled demolition of the Fort in July, 2005.
04- 26- 05 Letter to Fort personnel from Superintendent’s Office telling them to
have everything of importance removed from the Fort by July 1, 2005
as demolition was scheduled to begin.
05- 19- 05 Letter from CSUF to Superintendent’s Office informing them of the
$ 155,210 value of the Fort Roosevelt Museum collection.
06- 02- 05 Article in Hanford Sentinel announcing to the community for the first
time the closing of Fort Roosevelt.
08- 10- 05 HESD discussion of elderberry bushes and request from new Save
Fort Roosevelt Committee for a sixty- day stay to allow them time to
form a business plan.
08- 24- 05 HESD Board of Trustees grants sixty- day stay to Save Fort Roosevelt
Committee.
09- 14- 05 Save Fort Roosevelt Committee asks for permission to enter Fort but
was denied for insurance and safety reasons.
12- 19- 05 Demolition began at Fort Roosevelt.
PART TWO: Hanford Elementary School District ( HESD)
2
Highlights of the agreement between HESD and Fort Board as of July, 1983
( Agreement attached in its entirety as Exhibit “ A”)
Findings:
1. That the District is the owner of the property commonly known as Fort
Roosevelt, located at 870 W. Davis Street, Hanford, California.
2. The District leases the facilities of Fort Roosevelt to the Fort Roosevelt
Board for $ 1.00 ( One Dollar).
3. The District, its agents and representatives, shall have the right, during term
of this agreement, to enter Fort Roosevelt for the purpose of inspection and
to ascertain if the Fort Board is performing according to the terms of this
agreement.
4. As a rider under the District’s insurance policies, the Fort Board agrees to
abide by any and all recommendations made at the time of annual safety
inspections made by District’s insurance carrier or their representatives, and
to make necessary repairs as indicated by same inspections.
Finding outside agreement:
HESD Board of Trustees and the Fort Roosevelt Board assigned ownership of the
Fort Roosevelt Museum’s vertebrae and feather collection, later valued at
$ 155,210.00, to California State University, Fresno. HESD Board of Trustees also
committed $ 10,000.00 to assist in the restoration of the collection.
PART TWO: Fort Roosevelt Board
Per agreement between HESD Superintendent’s Office and Fort Roosevelt
Board as of July 1983
Finding:
That the Fort Board hereby agrees to accept responsibility of the property and
operation of Fort Roosevelt, including:
( a) Fort Board agrees to hold District harmless, and defend all claims, from
loss or damage to property and for all injury to persons resulting from Fort
Board’s use of the Fort Roosevelt facilities.
( b) The Fort Board agrees to accept all financial responsibility for the
operation of the Fort facilities, including, but not limited to, any debt incurred
by Fort Board regarding operation of these facilities.
3
( c) Fort Board agrees to maintain premises in good repair and tenable
condition, including, but not limited to, fence, buildings, grounds, equipment,
animals, etc., during the period of lease. No items will be removed without
District approval.
( d) This agreement may be terminated by either party, at their sole discretion,
by giving written notice to the other 30 days in advance. Upon such a
termination, costs due the District shall be prorated to the date of termination
and shall be due and payable upon such date, and upon termination of this
agreement, the Fort Board will leave the premises as they found it, excluding
normal wear and tear.
Findings outside of agreement
1. The Fort Roosevelt organizational committee was very lax in setting up a
viable board and when members dropped from active participation
replacements were not named. Most members lost interest in serving and there
were only two active board members left at the end.
2. The Grand Jury found no inventory of Fort property. Also, two prominent
features of the Fort, the windmill and wagon, are missing.
3. Papers of incorporation and by- laws for the Fort Board were drawn up but
never filed. No filing was listed in California Secretary of State records.
4. No records of minutes or meetings can be found.
5. Community help was repeatedly offered for restoration of the Fort but
was turned down by Fort staff.
CONCLUSIONS:
After many interviews and reviewing documents in regards to the Fort the Grand
Jury finds that neglect on the part of the Fort Roosevelt Board and lack of Hanford
Elementary School District supervision led to the demise of Fort Roosevelt. Fort
Roosevelt was allowed to deteriorate to the point of being unsalvageable and had
to be torn down. Future generations will be denied the hands- on experience of Fort
Roosevelt.
4
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None.
COMMENTS:
It is hoped by the Grand Jury that the Save Fort Roosevelt Committee continues its
efforts in developing an appropriate replacement for the old Fort Roosevelt.
RESPONSE:
This is an informational report. No formal response to the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury
report is required.
5
EXHIBIT TO REPORT
AGREEMENT
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
SYNOPSIS:
The Grand Jury examined the County’s method of disposing of surplus property.
Previously, auctions were held to dispose of surplus items not recycled within the
various county departments. Such auctions are no longer feasible. The Grand Jury
examined the
A new policy was developed in August, 2005. The warehouse, which had been
full, was cleaned out and the area devoted to surplus property was greatly reduced
in size. The new policy includes using the Kings County website to inform
departments of available items and directives limiting what items will go to the
warehouse. It also adds new responsibilities as job descriptions have been
expanded to include overseeing the disposition of surplus property.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
A request was made that the Grand Jury investigate the way surplus County
equipment is disposed.
AUTHORITY:
Our authority is pursuant to California Penal Code § 925.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted, documents researched, made.
PART ONE
PAST PROCEDURE
Findings:
1. Personnel from the Kings County Finance Department were interviewed.
Kings County no longer holds public auctions of surplus property. They
were found not to be cost effective, and have not been held for about ten
71
years. Kings County does not have adequate personnel or finances to
manage auctions.
2. Under the prior system, some department heads took the initiative to obtain
surplus equipment from the warehouse, thus saving taxpayers’ dollars.
PART TWO
CURRENT PROCEDURE
Findings:
1. The decision was made that a new policy was needed. It was updated by
the Kings County Department of Finance. The Grand Jury received copies
of two parts of the “ County of Kings Policy Manual” with the effective date
August 23, 2005: “ Surplus Property” and “ Inventory Control”. Copies of
those documents are attached hereto as Exhibit “ A” and made a part hereof.
2. The Grand Jury was told that county employees are strongly discouraged
from taking possession of surplus property, however this is not found in
any written policy.
3. Under the new policy which went into effect August 23, 2005 the county
removes missing items from the inventory list after two years. (“ Inventory
Control Policy V, Responsibility for Lost Assets”).
4. A visit was made to Kings County Warehouse. The warehouse had been
cleared of most County surplus property by sending it to the dump. Some
was useless, and some could have been repaired and recycled. A chain link
fence had been erected across the room, leaving a very small area for
surplus property. The fence and gate separating the two areas is not secure.
The majority of the warehouse will be used by the Public Works
Department, in an attempt to make better use of county buildings.
5. The County has developed a quality program for recycling computers with
the Kings Regional Occupation Program (“ KROP”). The computers are
repaired/ refurbished and provided to needy families at no cost.
6. The Kings County Board of Supervisors regularly increases the scrap dollar
value limit requiring its oversight ( currently $ 10,000). Items with scrap
value of less than $ 10,000 are disposed of by the Purchasing Manager or
Surplus Property Coordinator by whatever method they deem most
economically advantageous to the county.
7. The Grand Jury finds $ 10,000 scrap value excessive.
8. There is no line item in the budget making money available to repair usable
surplus items.
9. Information regarding surplus property is made available to department
heads via the Kings County website ( INSIDE KINGS) where they can
72
review the availability of items which could save money in their
departmental budgets.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The “ Policy Manual, Surplus Property” Section III. B. mentions “ Purchasing
Manager” who is the Director of Finance. That should be made clear.
2. “ Surplus Property Policy Section III. A.” should insert as a second sentence,
“ The purpose of creating the position of Surplus Property Coordinator is to
coordinate the disposition of surplus property in each department of Kings
County.”
3. “ Surplus Property Policy Section III. B. 2.” should be amended to read that
“ surplus or damaged property should be held for at least 30 days, either in
the office or in the warehouse.” During this time surplus property should
be listed on the computer as being available.
4. For maximum effectiveness the Department of Finance must ensure that the
new policies are understood, adhered to and enforced.
5. The warehouse gate and fence separating the two areas must be made
secure.
6. All items should be sent to the warehouse after thirty days to facilitate
pickup by charitable organizations in one central location.
7. Every effort should be made to donate all surplus items to a worthy
organization prior to disposal.
8. The name and telephone number of the person managing the warehouse
COMMENTS:
1. The current program for recycling surplus computers to KROP where they
are repaired and given without cost to needy families is commended.
2. Finding another use for surplus is needed. The Grand Jury suggests that
surplus property that no Kings County department wants be made available
to some charitable organization such as the Salvation Army. This would
promote goodwill in the community as well as saving taxpayer dollars for
disposal fees. should be made available to all departments.
3. The new policy does not prevent waste of taxpayers’ money.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agencies are required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:
• Kings County Board of Supervisors
73
74
DISASTER PLAN FOR KINGS COUNTY
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED
County’s disaster plan the recent Gulf Coast storms prompted the Grand
Jury to investigate Kings and communications network.
AUTHORITY
Our authority is pursuant to § § 925 and 925( a) of the California Penal Code.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
Interviews were conducted, documents researched and visits made.
PART ONE
FIRST FINDINGS
1. “ Government at all levels has the responsibility to plan for and
respond to disasters resulting from hazards that are known to threaten
the jurisdiction.” ( Kings County Emergency Operations Policy Plan
Statement)
2 Kings County agencies are prepared for both natural and manmade
emergencies.
SECOND FINDINGS
1 The Committee interviewed personnel from the Kings County Office
of Emergency Services ( OES) concerning Kings County’s disaster
plan.
2. The Committee visited Kings County Dispatch Center. We were told
that it has the capacity to communicate with all agencies at all times.
Communications equipment is constantly being upgraded as funds
allow.
3. Personnel from safety services of the Cities of Hanford, Lemoore and
Corcoran and the California Highway Patrol were interviewed
concerning their disaster plan. All have an Emergency Operations
Command Center ( EOC) which can communicate with all of the
cities’ and county’s agencies.
4. All agencies have a Mobile Command Center available to them.
5 Every department has a written Standard Emergency Management
Systems ( SEMS) plan which is updated annually.
6 We were informed that all Kings County Emergency Services
agencies enjoy an extraordinarily close and cooperative relationship.
7 Funding to support emergency services is supplemented by
Department of Homeland Security.
8 The position of Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services in
Kings County is half time. The same person is also employed half-time
by the Kings County Fire Department, making that person
available 8 hours a day. Half of the salary is paid by Kings County
and half is paid by federal funds.
PART TWO
STRUCTURE OF A DISASTER PLAN
1. When all resources of the initiating agency are exhausted, the
following sequence of requests for additional aid must be followed to
the next level:
2 The first responder will remain in charge of a disaster until someone
from the agency to which the responsibility rests arrives.
3 The responsible agency would first draw upon all agencies within
Kings County, then; Region V. The State of California is divided into
six regions. Kings County is part of Region V. The Inland
2
Operations Center ( Region V) also includes Merced, Mariposa,
Madera, Fresno and Tulare counties.
4. After that the State of California will receive requests for aid.
5. The final resource will be the Federal Government. This sequence
must be followed exactly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The position of Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services
should be a full- time position. That person should ascertain that all
fire stations in Kings County have multiple copies of the personal
emergency preparedness leaflet.
2. Disaster preparedness literature should be distributed to all police
departments ( including the California Highway Patrol), sheriff’s
substations and fire stations throughout Kings County.
COMMENTS
1. All agencies interviewed recommend that individuals be prepared to
survive on their own for a reasonable length of time.
2. It is necessary that individuals be prepared to be self- sustaining in a
disaster.
3. Citizens can visit any Hanford Fire Station or the Kings County Fire
Department Headquarters on Campus Drive in Hanford for literature
and recommendations.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933 ( c) the following are required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
• Kings County Board of Supervisors
• Kings County Fire Chief
• Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services
3
KINGS AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SYNOPSIS:
On November 3, 2005 the Kings County Grand Jury received a Request for Investigation
concerning a citizen’s property being used as a Kings Area Rapid Transit ( KART) bus
stop, thus creating a trash and loitering problem in front of his home.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
The 2005- 2006 Kings County Grand Jury received a Request for Investigation on behalf
of the property owner asking for assistance in resolving the problem of the unmarked bus
stop.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 925( a), “ The
Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or
Joint Powers Agency located in the county.”
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the Grand Jury rode the KART bus on the Hanford- Lemoore Direct Route
on January 6, 2006. Management of KART and a representative of the Commission on
Aging were interviewed on January 20, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. A KART bus can stop, on request, at any location on its route, except in the City
of Hanford.
2. Bus routes are reviewed yearly.
3. The bus was clean, the driver courteous and helpful.
91
ARMONA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
SYNOPSIS:
Through local media coverage the Grand Jury became aware of potential problems
relating to water and sewage issues in the Armona area and therefore began an
investigation into the preparations that the district was making to deal with this
potential problem.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Concerns by the Grand Jury and other citizens that the housing density in Armona
could compromise the water and sewer structure.
AUTHORITY:
The Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 933.5 as to the
investigation of special purpose assessing or taxing districts.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed an official of the Armona Community
Service District on February 10, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. There are plans to drill another well ( Well # 7) in the immediate future.
2. Well # 7 would service 1800 connections.
3. Funds are in place or nearly in place to fund the drilling of Well # 7.
4. Land is being obtained for the well.
5. There are plans being drawn up for a possible second new well.
6. Bids have been invited to expand the sewage treatment capacity to
encompass all the anticipated new growth.
CONCLUSION:
The Grand Jury was impressed that the Armona Community Service District has
been so forward- thinking in their planning for growth in their district. The
89
Armona Community Service District has made plans for the rapid expansion of
their district to cause little disruption to the present citizens of the district while
serving the needs of the incoming community members.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE:
None needed. This is an informational report only.
90
4. The corner at 18th Avenue and Bush Street in Lemoore is too congested with
traffic and pedestrians making it a dangerous and unsuitable location for a bus
stop.
5. Litter was seen around many of the bus stops but it is picked up at designated bus
stops twice weekly and at other bus stop locations every two weeks.
6. The fare increases are due to population growth resulting in government funding
changes.
7. Seniors may buy bus tickets at a reduced rate at the Commission on Aging Office
at 1197 South Drive, Hanford.
CONCLUSION:
The Grand Jury thanks KART management for responding immediately to its concerns.
The bus stop on the congested and dangerous corner of 18th Avenue and Bush Street has
been relocated. The complainant’s property is no longer used as a bus stop. Litter is
picked up at official bus stops twice weekly and at other bus stop locations every two
weeks. Seniors may buy bus tickets at a reduced rate at the Commission on Aging office
at 1197 South Drive.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE:
None needed. This is an informational report only.
92
KIT CARSON SCHOOL DISTRICT
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury received a complaint concerning a child who got
off a school bus with blood on his face and hands. When the parent called the
school, the school could not get in touch with bus driver. School personnel told her
they would get back to her. School personnel did get back to her and she was told
the bus driver could not be reached because the radio was off. Later that day she
was contacted and told the camera was not functioning.
AUTHORITY:
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.5
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews on site at Kit Carson School with the School Superintendent and the
Traffic Director were held. There were two incidents that happened between
January and the time of the interview. In one incident the school could not reach
the person driving the bus because the radio was off. An on site review of repair
records of Kit Carson school buses at the Hanford High School District Garage
was held in April, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. Radios and cameras are not required by law to be installed on school buses.
2. Most cameras that are installed in school buses are set to operate zero to
thirty minutes after the ignition is turned off.
3. There are no records showing any cameras on the Kit Carson school buses
have been repaired from January 2006 to the time of the interview for this
report in April, 2006.
4. The cameras on Kit Carson School buses are set to run ten minutes after the
ignition is turned off.
5. Most cameras have an eight- hour run time limit before they automatically
rewind.
93
6. Kit Carson School buses have radios and cameras installed by the Hanford
High District Garage. The radios can be turned off by the driver.
7. By law buses must be inspected every 3,000 miles, or after operating for 45
days, whichever comes first.
COMMENTS:
1. The Kit Carson School Traffic Director has agreed to our
recommendation. This will be implemented as soon as possible.
2. During the Grand Jury’s interview at the Kit Carson School the Grand
Jury was told the radio problem has been taken care of. The bus
drivers now have with them on their person a Nextel walkie- talkie.
There is no reasonable situation in which the school could not reach
the driver, even if the bus radio is turned off.
3. The camera was not found to be malfunctioning but it was more than
likely in the rewind mode.
RECOMMENDATION:
Tape on cameras should be changed on a daily basis and saved for at least twenty-four
hours.
RESPONSE:
No response required for this report
94
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury visited the Juvenile Detention Center on January 5, 2006.
The tour was conducted by a senior staff member.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Public interest
AUTHORITY:
The Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code Section § 919( b) “ The Grand
Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the
county.”
FINDINGS:
1. Offenders may be in detention for a week or even a year.
2. When they turn eighteen, they may be sent to California Youth Authority.
3. Most juvenile offenders are here for assault.
4. Gang activity is not tolerated.
5. This is a maximum security facility with most holding cells for two and a few for
one. Capacity is regulated to forty- six. There are usually about twenty juvenile
offenders at one time.
6. Each cell has an intercom so conversations can be monitored.
7. There are no cameras in the cells, only in the halls.
8. Male and female offenders are kept in separate areas.
9. There is a lunchroom and a staffed kitchen. Hot meals are served for breakfast
and dinner. Noon meals are a sack lunch.
COMMENTS:
1. Some detainees are over eighteen because the crime was committed when they
were younger.
2. The building is concrete block with steel doors. There are some windows.
3. Sometimes an offender will bang or kick the door. They are told to stop. If they
continue, disciplinary action is taken.
95
4. Some inmates are fourth generation offenders. They see parents involved in
illegal activities and that is the example they follow.
5. The offenders medical and mental needs are taken care of by a doctor and a
psychiatrist. A nurse is always on duty, distributing medication and keeping
records.
6. The Grand Jury was impressed with the efficient operation of this facility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None.
RESPONSE:
No response is required for this report.
96
KINGS COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE
SYNOPSIS:
In the fall of 1991 the Sheriff’s Department and the Office of the District Attorney saw
the need for an agency to control the gang activity that had been growing in Kings
County. Thus, the multi- agency unit consisting of members from the Kings County
Sheriff’s Department, Hanford Police Department, Lemoore Police Department and
Corcoran Police Department was created under the direction of the Kings County
Probation Department. Prevention, intervention and suppression are the goals of the
Kings County Gang Task Force.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 925 which
states, “ The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, and records of the
officers, departments or functions of the county.”
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
On November 10, 2005 a member of the Kings County Gang Task Force ( KCGTF) was
interviewed. On November 30, 2005 two members of the KCGTF made a presentation to
the Grand Jury. Documents were made available to the Grand Jury by the KCGTF and
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.
FINDINGS:
1. Information derived from interviews and presentation by the KCGTF:
a. Gang members are identified to other gang members by specific colors,
numbers, tattoos or gestures.
b. Gang members are commonly between the ages of 13 and 19 years of age
but have been found as young as eight years of age.
c. Gangs are commonly segregated along ethnic lines.
d. Some gang members have family members who belong to a gang.
e. When a known gang member, or someone known to be related to a gang
member, is arraigned in a gang related crime, the charges may be enhanced.
This can result in a longer prison sentence
97
f. Most gang activity occurs at night.
g. The KCGTF will make a presentation to any requesting public agency.
h. If a citizen finds graffiti on his property, he may call the Probation
Department Office at 582- 3211, extension 3850. That office will arrange to
have it removed.
2. Information derived from documents provided by the KCGTF and the Kings
County District Attorney’s Office:
a. The KCTGF created 92 crime reports in 2005; 71 of those reports were
gang related and 41 were felony cases.
b. The KCGTF participated in or arrested 187 offenders; 138 of those arrested
were gang members or associates.
c. KCGTF estimates that at any given time there are about 5,000 active gang
members in Kings County.
d. From documents furnished by KCGTF:
“ Gang crimes included homicide, attempted homicide,
assault with a deadly weapon, battery, vandalism, drug
sales, possession of dangerous/ deadly weapons, throwing
an object at a vehicle, witness intimidation, terrorist
threats, illegal firearms possession, burglary, theft,
vehicle theft, forgery, fraud, etc. Gang members are not
specific as to which crimes they will commit. One of the
things that makes them gang members is that they
commit crimes, any and all crimes.”
COMMENTS:
The Kings County Grand Jury thanks the KCGTF and the District Attorney’s
Office for their aid in putting together this report. Keep up the good work.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:
No response is required for this report.
98
BOOT CAMP VISIT
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury visited the Boot Camp on January 5, 2006.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Public interest.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 919( b), “ The
Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the
County.”
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the Kings County Grand Jury toured the Boot Camp on January 5, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. Kings County started the Boot Camp program in 1995.
2. A juvenile offender can be recommended for the Boot Camp program by his or her
Probation Officer. When approved by a judge the juvenile offender is ordered to
Boot Camp for a specific length of time.
3. The Boot Camp program is designed for male and female juvenile offenders who
are kept separated except for classroom instruction. They are each divided into
two groups: first offenders and repeat offenders.
4. Although about 80% of the juvenile offenders are gang members, no gang activity
is tolerated.
5. Juvenile offenders are always under adult supervision.
6. The normal periods of stay at the Boot Camp are three or five months.
7. The juveniles participate in physical training, academics, victim awareness, drug
and alcohol counseling, anger management and community service.
99
COMMENTS:
1. All juvenile offenders have duties which are rotated periodically.
2. Girls wear no make- up and their hair is neatly pulled back in a bun.
3. Boys have very short hair and are clean shaven.
4. The program is very structured and stresses military protocol, physical
conditioning, education and life skills.
5. Groups wear distinctive clothing. Most wear camouflage. Group leaders, who
earn that rank, wear grey.
6. Groups move from one location to the next marching in close formation.
7. The Probation Department provides for the medical and psychiatric needs of the
juvenile offenders.
8. There are Sunday church services available.
9. In the classrooms, girls sit on one side and the boys on the other. They are not
allowed to talk unless directed by the teacher.
10. The Grand Jury was impressed with the efficient operation of this facility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE:
No response is required for this report.
100
KINGS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
SYNOPSIS:
The Grand Jury received two requests to investigate the services provided as well
as the manner of service provided by the Kings County Department of Child
Support Services. The complaints stated that the clients felt as if they were being
singled out for punitive action by the Child Support Services.
AUTHORITY:
Our authority is pursuant to California Penal Code § 925.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted and documents researched.
Findings:
1. That in both cases, instructions from the Court were not followed and that
the clients repeatedly did not respond to Court orders, including
summonses to appear in court.
2. That in both cases, the clients fell grossly behind in child and/ or spousal
support payments.
3. That the directions given to both clients were clear and concise.
4. That Child Support Services and the Court are dependent upon each client
for information which would cause changes to be made in the amount of
child and/ or spousal support paid by said client.
5. That Child Support Services is open and most willing to work with every
person who is ordered to pay support but is dependent upon a two way line
of communication.
6. That an audit can and will be done if requested in writing by the
complaining party.
7. That an audit was made by Child Support Services for one of the clients
and an error, in his favor, was found. He was immediately notified and a
refund was initiated.
101
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Child Support Services office continue to communicate with clients so
that they might be more aware of the audit request process.
COMMENTS:
The Grand Jury commends the Child Support Services office for requesting a
second interview with the Grand Jury in order to admit that an error in calculations
had been made and to explain the new procedure implemented to avoid repeating
that mistake. Members of the Child Support Services Department examined every
like case to make sure that there were no similar errors and found none. The Child
Support Services office also developed an additional step in preparing calculations
so that errors of this type would be eliminated.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:
None required.
102

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

2005- 2006 KINGS COUNTY GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF HANFORD/ CITY MANAGER RETIREMENT AGREEMENT
HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
ADDENDUM TO REPORT BY THE 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE
HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
FIRST 5 OF KINGS COUNTY
KINGS WASTE AND RECYCLING AUTHORITY
CITY OF HANFORD WASTE AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS
THE DEMISE OF FORT ROOSEVELT
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
DISASTER PLAN FOR KINGS COUNTY
ARMONA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
KINGS AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION
KIT CARSON SCHOOL DISTRICT
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
KINGS COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE
BOOT CAMP VISIT
KINGS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
CITY OF HANFORD/ CITY MANAGER
RETIREMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION.
The Kings County Grand Jury began its investigation on November 21, 2005 and
completed it on May 24, 2006.
As the Grand Jury commenced its investigation of the negotiation of the
“ Employment Agreement for a Fixed Term and General Release” ( See Exhibit 2;
hereinafter referred to as the “ 2005 Agreement”) it became apparent that many
other areas of inquiry were necessary. In order to present a complete
understanding of how and why the City of Hanford comes to important decisions a
wider and deeper scrutiny had to be initiated.
The Grand Jury found that a very important document, namely a “ Letter of
Agreement” ( See Exhibit 1; hereinafter referred to as the “ 1990 Agreement”)
dated December 11, 1990 and signed by the then Mayor and the newly hired City
Manager may not have been provided to all the present City Council members
during the negotiations for the 2005 Agreement or at any prior time. This
document should have been available to them while they were attempting to arrive
at a proper and informed decision as to the terms and conditions contained in the
2005 Agreement.
It is apparent to the Grand Jury that numerous errors were made by the City
Council and its advisors on how to conduct its closed sessions and in the
reviewing and suggesting changes to the 2005 Agreement. This resulted in
violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act ( see California Government Code sections
54950 et seq; hereinafter referred to as the “ Brown Act”).
The Grand Jury also discovered that there was no formal evaluation process in
place for the City Manager, although City Council members past and present have
urged such action for many years.
The investigation also revealed that no minutes are taken in any form during
closed sessions, although they are permitted but not required by the Brown Act.
The investigation also revealed a lack of security with regard to storage and access
to city employees’ personnel files.
II. AUTHORITY.
Our authority is pursuant to of the California Penal Code § 925a, which states,
“ The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any
incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any
other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the Grand Jury may investigate
and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments,
functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or
joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and
fit.” The Grand Jury’s mandate is “… to act as the public’s ‘ watchdog’ by
investigating and reporting upon the affairs of local government …” ( McClatchy
Newspapers v Superior Court [ 1988] 44 Cal. 3d 1162, 11760).
III. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION.
The Grand Jury enlisted the aid of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office in
establishing how to proceed with this investigation. This is allowable under
California Penal Code § 935 which states, “ The District Attorney may at all times
appear before the grand jury for the purpose of giving information or advice
relative to any matter cognizable by the grand jury, and may interrogate witnesses
before the grand jury whenever he thinks it necessary.”
It was decided that a permanent recorded transcript should be made. Therefore,
Kings Court Reporters was retained to record and transcribe all testimony, and the
District Attorney’s Office conducted the questioning of all witnesses on behalf of
the Grand Jury. All witnesses were placed under oath prior to their testimony and
admonished after their testimony not to reveal any matters discussed during their
appearance before the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury interviewed nineteen witnesses, some of whom were interviewed
multiple times. Sixty- three exhibits were collected as evidence and examined.
The final recorded transcripts consist of twenty- one volumes containing eleven
hundred seventy- nine pages of testimony.
IV. FINDINGS.
A. THE 2005 AGREEMENT ( EXHIBIT 2).
1. The 2005 Agreement was negotiated by attorneys representing the City
Council and the City Manager over a period of weeks, and it was signed by
the Mayor of Hanford and the City Manager prior to an open session of the
City Council on November 15, 2005.
2
2. Under Paragraph 2 of the 2005 Agreement, the City Manager “ for the time
period of December 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, will continue as City
Manager and thereafter, he will remain in paid status as Assistant City
Manager with the City providing services only as directed by the City
Council, through August 1, 2007, when he will officially commence his
retirement.”
3. Under Paragraph 3 of the 2005 Agreement, “ In the event that prior to June
30, 2006, the Hanford City Council hires a new City Manager or Mr.
Reynolds’ performance as City Manager is not consistent with the
Council’s expectations, the parties agree that he shall vacate the City
Manager position without loss of any salary and benefits and will assume
the position of Assistant City Manager. As Assistant City Manager, Mr.
Reynolds shall provide services only as directed by the City Council.”
( Underlining added)
4. Paragraph 4 of the 2005 Agreement states, “ In the event any of the actions
identified in Paragraph 3 of this agreement and release occur, Mr. Reynolds
shall vacate the position of City Manager, and assume the position of
Assistant City Manager and will be on paid administrative leave at same the
[ sic] salary and benefits, through August 1, 2007, the date upon which Mr.
Reynolds will retire from the City pursuant to the City’s retirement benefit
program then in effect.” ( Underlining added)
5. Under the 2005 Agreement, the total salary and benefits to be received by
the City Manager for the period of July 1, 2006 through August 1, 2007
will be $ 208,754. This is thirteen months times $ 12,197 monthly salary,
plus $ 3,861 monthly benefits.
6. Under the 2005 Agreement, with the extension of the City Manager’s
“ employment” from June 30, 2006 until August 1, 2007, the City
Manager’s retirement benefits will increase from “ 2% at 55” to “ 3% at 60.”
Under the current plan retiring persons would receive 2% of their final
salary times the number of years of employment, starting at age 55. Under
the future plan, which takes effect on July 1, 2007, retiring persons will
receive 3% of their final salary times the number of years employed,
starting at age 60. The new retirement program greatly increases the value
of the 2005 Agreement for the retiring employee, and will also significantly
add to the expenses incurred by the City of Hanford.
7. Nowhere in the 2005 Agreement is it stated that the City Council has the
ability to “ fire” the City Manager for non- performance of duties. Its only
recourse, according to the agreement, is that the City Manager “ shall vacate
the City Manager position without loss of any salary and benefits and will
assume the position of Assistant City Manager.” ( Paragraph 3)
Paragraph 4 states he will “ assume the position of Assistant City Manager
and will be on paid administrative leave at same the [ sic] salary and
benefits through August 1, 2007, the date upon which Mr. Reynolds will
3
retire from employment with the City pursuant to the City’s retirement
benefit program then in effect.”
Therefore, according to the 2005 Agreement, the only action the City
Council can take in the event of non- performance by the City Manager is to
continue to pay at full salary through August 1, 2007 in order to insure
eligibility for the improved retirement package.
B. THE 1990 AGREEMENT ( Exhibit 1).
1. The 1990 Agreement is dated December 11, 1990, printed on City of
Hanford letterhead, and signed by the then Mayor of Hanford and the
incoming City Manager. Under the 1990 Agreement, the City Manager
was an “ at will” employee who could be terminated at any time and for any
reason. Under the 2005 Agreement, the City Manager is now an employee
for a term ending on August 1, 2007, and there is no way the City Council
can terminate him. The Grand Jury cannot understand why the City
Council signed off on such a one- sided agreement. The Council’s
explanation that it felt it had a moral obligation to be generous with its
termination settlement does a disservice to the public.
2. The 1990 Agreement contains eight numbered items listing the benefits of
employment offered to and accepted by the new City Manager.
3. Item 7 of the 1990 Agreement states, “ should the City terminate the
employee for reasons other than malfeasance or illegal acts, the City shall
pay to the employee a lump sum cash payment equal to six ( 6) months
current aggregate salary. ”
4. Although the 1990 Agreement was superseded by the 2005 Agreement,
there is no mention made of it in the 2005 Agreement.
5. The Grand Jury sent a letter to the City Clerk dated November 28, 2005
requesting copies of all agreements between the City of Hanford and the
City Manager and received copies of both the 1990 Agreement and the
2005 Agreement within seventy- two ( 72) hours.
6. There is some evidence that current and former members of the Hanford
City Council made inquiries as to the existence of an agreement between
the City and the City Manager, but it was never given to any of them.
7. The Grand Jury finds that knowledge of the 1990 Agreement may have
affected the City Council’s negotiation of the 2005 Agreement and the
terms thereof.
8. The Grand Jury finds that information regarding the existence of and the
terms of the 1990 Agreement were not provided to City Council members
during the negotiation of the 2005 Agreement.
4
9. As the official body employing the City Manager and negotiating the terms
and conditions of the 2005 Agreement, the City Council should have been
provided with a copy of the 1990 agreement upon first assuming office
after being elected.
10. The Grand Jury could find no evidence that current or former city
employees or officials had ever seen the 1990 Agreement. From 1990 until
the Grand Jury received it, the 1990 Agreement apparently remained
inaccessible to all who asked if there was such an agreement. However,
when the Grand Jury requested this information through normal channels,
it was provided within seventy- two ( 72) hours. The Grand Jury finds that
this vital document was not provided to those who requested it, even
though they had a legal right to possess it.
11. Under City Council Resolution No. 0501- R ( Exhibit 3; hereinafter the
“ Salary Resolution”), passed by the City Council on January 4, 2005 and
still in effect on November 15, 2005, the vacant Assistant City Manager’s
position has an approved salary range of $ 7,635 - $ 9,162 per month, well
below the salary stated in paragraph 4 of the 2005 Agreement. If the City
Manager were placed in the Assistant City Manager position at a salary
higher than that authorized by the Salary Resolution, it would constitute a
violation of the city’s own Salary Resolution. This potential violation was
not corrected until the passage of City Council Resolution No. 06- 02- R,
which was not passed until January 3, 2006, more than six weeks after the
new agreement was signed.
12. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council did not have all the information
and documents it needed prior to its decision to enter into the 2005
Agreement to terminate the current City Manager.
13. The Grand Jury finds that the City Manager did not provide information to
the City Council to which it was entitled and which it needed to make an
informed and appropriate decision as to the terms and conditions of the
2005 Agreement.
14. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council, instead of exercising due
diligence in the pursuit of information which it needed in order to make a
proper and informed decision, relied on the uninformed assurances of
others.
15. The Grand Jury finds that the City Attorney, who has served since 1989,
failed in providing the City Council with the proper advice related to
compliance with the Brown Act.
16. The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk failed to follow up on requests
from City of Hanford officials for information which they needed
concerning the 1990 Agreement and the negotiations for the 2005
Agreement.
5
C. RALPH M. BROWN ACT ( CLOSED SESSIONS).
1. The Hanford City Council began holding a series of regular and special
closed sessions on July 19, 2005 to set up an evaluation process for
reviewing the job performance of the City Manager.
2. After several additional closed sessions held on August 16, 2005, August
29, 2005, September 7, 2005, September 13, 2005, September 21, 2005 ,
and on September 28, 2005, the City Council decided to terminate the City
Manager’ s employment with the City. For all meetings held through
September 28, 2005 the agenda item was correctly labeled as “ Performance
Evaluation Process ( GC 54957) – City Manager.”
3. It was also decided at the September 28, 2005 meeting to retain outside
counsel to guide the City Council in its negotiations with the City Manager.
As of the next meeting the item labeling “ Performance Evaluation Process
( GC 54957) – City Manager” became inappropriate under the Brown Act
because the discussions of performance had ended and a discussion of a
proposed termination settlement for the City Manager began. During
subsequent closed session meetings with its negotiator, the agenda item
identifying the closed sessions should have cited Government Code section
54957.6 and should have stated “ Negotiations with Unrepresented
Employee – City Manager”.
4. The agenda item labeling for all closed sessions was supplied by the City
Attorney.
5. Government Code § 54957( b)( 4)(“ Brown Act”) states explicitly, “ Closed
sessions held pursuant to this subdivision shall not include discussion or
action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation
that results from the imposition of discipline.” The Grand Jury finds that
when the City Council approved the 2005 Agreement, it clearly had no
intention of reducing compensation as a result of the imposition of
discipline. Therefore, since the agenda item identified the closed sessions
held subsequent to September 28, 2005 as “ Performance Evaluation
Process ( GC 54957) – City Manager”, all such meetings which included
discussions of compensation violated the Brown Act.
6. The Grand Jury finds that if the closed sessions held subsequent to
September 28, 2005 had been properly labeled as “ Negotiations with
Unrepresented Employee – City Manager” and had properly cited
Government Code section 54957.6, compensation could have been
discussed in closed session, but the City Council could not have taken final
action on such compensation in closed session. The Grand Jury further
finds that the 2005 Agreement was approved by the City Council in closed
session on November 15, 2005, and it was executed by both the Mayor and
the City Manager prior to the City Council returning to open session on that
same date. Therefore, it is clear that the City Council took final action on
6
the City Manager’s compensation in closed session in violation of the
Brown Act.
7. The Grand Jury finds that the Hanford City Council should have received
better guidance to insure they operated within the rules of the Brown Act.
8. The Grand Jury believes the City Council was attempting to act in a fair
and judicious matter.
D. EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS.
1. City Manager. As to the City Manager and the City Manager position the
Grand Jury finds all of the following:
( a) At no time has there been a formal evaluation and review
process in place for the person serving as City Manager.
( b) A formal annual evaluation and review process for the City
Manager is essential for the proper functioning of City government
but one has not been implemented by the City Council.
( c) While many discussions among many City Councils over
many years have taken place, thus far, no City Council has
established an annual review process for the City Manager.
( d) Without an established annual review process in place, the
City Council cannot measure the performance of the City Manager
from year to year.
( e) Without an established annual review process, the City
Manager will not have the opportunity to improve his or her
performance and to provide the kind of leadership which the City
needs.
( f) Until June 30, 2005, the City Council as a body expressed no
concerns about how the City Manager conducted city business.
( g) As of July 2005, the City Council decided to review the City
Manager’s performance.
( h) After years of benign neglect, the City Council apparently
agreed they should take control of the actions of the City Manager.
( i) Therefore, when the City Council decided it wanted to
terminate its relationship with the current City Manager, they had no
written evaluations from prior years to fall back on.
2. City Clerk. As to the City Clerk and the City Clerk position, the Grand
Jury finds all of the following:
( a) The City Clerk answers directly to the City Manager and in
addition serves as the City Manager’s secretary.
( b) Under the current system, the City Clerk is in the position of
having to serve two masters, the City Manager on one hand and the
City Council on the other.
7
( c) This system could, under certain circumstances, place the
City Clerk in the very difficult situation of having to decide whose
interest outweighs the other’s.
3. City Attorney. As to the City Attorney and the City Attorney position, the
Grand Jury finds all of the following:
( a) The current City Attorney has served the City of Hanford
since 1989.
( b) As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the performance of the
City Attorney has never been reviewed by the City Council.
E. MINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS.
1. The City Council does not keep minutes of its closed sessions in any form,
either written or recorded.
2. When asked to recall under oath what transpired at the closed sessions
regarding the City Manager’s situation, varying statements were made by
the witnesses as to what happened during those sessions.
3. The Grand Jury believes that each of these witnesses was doing his/ her very
best to recall actions and decisions made at these closed sessions
accurately. The passing of time since those closed sessions simply made
consistent and accurate recall extremely difficult.
4. Keeping recorded or written minutes would have greatly helped the
witnesses in giving their testimony.
F. PERSONNEL RECORDS.
1. At the present time personnel files are kept behind the receptionist’s desk in
the offices of the City Manager and City Clerk.
2. As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the files are left unlocked during
normal working hours.
3. During the course of an average working day, the files are left unattended
while city employees working in this area go about their business.
4. While these files are unattended, anyone, whether authorized or not, could
access these files.
5. There is no system for tracking documents removed from personnel files
for legitimate use within the office.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. The City Council should take whatever steps it deems appropriate and
necessary to ensure that when negotiating employment contracts with its
employees, it has access to all relevant documents, including, but not
8
limited to, the current contract and the employee’s prior written
evaluations.
2. The City Council should receive training on compliance with the Brown
Act and should take whatever additional steps it deems appropriate and
necessary to ensure that it receives appropriate advice from the City
Manager’s office and the City Attorney’s office related to compliance with
the Brown Act.
3. The City Council should establish and implement an annual performance
evaluation process for all employees and officers for which it has direct
hiring and firing authority, including, but not limited to, the City Manager,
the City Attorney and the City Clerk.
4. The City Council should keep written or recorded minutes of its closed
sessions.
5. The City Council should establish and implement an effective system for
ensuring the security and confidentiality of its personnel records.
VI. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS.
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond within 60 days to the findings and recommendations contained in this
report.
• Hanford City Council
9
HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
SYNOPSIS:
The Grand Jury received Request For Investigation from concerned citizens
regarding the operations of some cemeteries in Kings County. Under Penal
Code section 933.5 the Grand Jury is empowered to: investigate all branches
of county, city and special district government to be assured they are being
administered efficiently, honestly and in the best interests of its citizens and
to issue reports on the needs and operation of all the departments…
The Grand Jury visited the Hanford Cemetery where the Grand Jury was
impressed by the appearance of the grounds. Staff explained the operational
procedures that were utilized to manage the cemetery district. After the visit
the Grand Jury reviewed information received, including the blue bound
booklet that will be discussed further in this report, and questions some of
the information that they received from staff.
The complaints that were received contained concerns that some cemetery
district property was being converted to private use and that the management
of the cemetery district was inefficient, mismanaged, unsafe, and
discriminatory. After diligent investigation using documents provided by
the cemetery district, interviews with cemetery district employees, board
members, and other interviews many concerns were noted.
BACKGROUND:
Most of the people that the Grand Jury talked to either are or have been an
employee at the Hanford Cemetery District. Each employee expressed
contentment working there. In their own means of expression they showed
self- fulfillment by being in a position to help those that were in one of life’s
extreme traumas and mourning.
Employees made statements that they needed the Grand Jury’s help to
eliminate the suppression by management and some of the working
conditions that they were dealing with daily.
FINDINGS:
I. When visiting the Hanford Cemetery on 10/ 2/ 05, the Grand Jury was
given a blue bound booklet of information sheets. The report was read aloud
1
by a staff member and each point was expounded on and explained to the
Grand Jury.
1. It is the obligation of the Board of Trustees to see that the cemetery runs
properly. In reference to the Board of Trustees, the blue bound booklet
states, “ The Hanford Cemetery District has a five member Board of
Trustees who oversee the management of the District. They establish
policy and procedures required for the daily operation of the district
cemeteries. Their function is to receive and review complaints and inquires
( sic) from the public and advise the District Manager.” The Grand Jury
finds that it is the obligation of the Board of Trustees to be accountable for
the operation of the Hanford Cemetery District. They can delegate some of
the responsibilities of the operation but not their control. It is vital that
such a small district board is open to the employees.
1. A statement is made, “ The District Manager visits each cemetery a
minimum of eight times per day to assure smooth operation and advise
the foreman of any work requirements that need to be handled”. In this
book it states the Cemetery District consists of Calvary, Hanford,
Lakeside, and Kings River Cemeteries. This statement was not only
written in the booklet but was read to this Grand Jury. None of the
people the Grand Jury interviewed could remember any more than one
funeral at the Lakeside and Kings River cemeteries within the last ten
years.
II. The Grand Jury finds that the management staff has been disrespectful to
families of deceased members on numerous occasions. Public relations are
paramount in this type of business because you are dealing with people
under much emotional distress.
III. One of the concerns the Grand Jury has is in regards to safety and the
lack of shoring equipment utilized by the cemetery district.
a) The Grand Jury finds that California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ( Cal- OSHA) regulation 1541.1 Requirements for Protective
Systems states:
“( a) Protection of employees in excavations.
( 1) Each employee in an excavation shall be protected
from cave- ins by an adequate protective system designed in
accordance with Section 1541.1( b) or ( c) except when:
( A) Excavations are made entirely in stable rock or
2
( B) Excavations are less than 5 feet in depth and examination
of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a
potential cave- in”.
The Grand Jury was informed during their on- site visit to Hanford Cemetery
that the employees used plywood and 2X4 timbers to shore the grave
excavations, but no one was able to show the Grand Jury members this
equipment. In a Cemetery Board meeting where two ( 2) members of the
Grand Jury were present the Board was informed that cemeteries were
exempt from any shoring requirements. When the Grand Jury asked for the
documentation on the exemptions for shoring requirements for cemeteries,
the Grand Jury was provided with a copy of Cal- OSHA’s exemption for
excavation in stable rock. There is no stable rock on the San Joaquin Valley
floor per Kings County Public Works engineers.
b) The Grand Jury did not observe any use of hearing protect
tion by the employees of the cemetery district and the district could be
opening themselves for hearing loss claims.
c) The Grand Jury did not observe an eye wash station at the Hanford
Cemetery and questions if there is one available while the employees are
working at the Calvary, Lakeside, and/ or Kings River sites.
d) The Grand Jury observed during its visit that the safety and employee
rights postings were old, outdated, and very difficult to read and find. These
postings were placed behind cemetery equipment. The Grand Jury has since
been told that the posters at Hanford Cemetery were updated and placed on
the refrigerator after the visit but there were no postings at all at Calvary
Cemetery. The Grand Jury was told that there was no need for posters at
both sites because the foremen and/ or leadmen came to Hanford Cemetery
twice a week for staff meetings, which does not adequately inform the other
employees as to their rights or safety matters.
e) The Grand Jury questioned staff during their on- site visit regarding
safety meetings and was told that they were held once a month. However,
the newest, recently written revision to the Board policies that the Grand
Jury received in the mail five ( 5) weeks after the request was made, states
that safety meetings will be held every six ( 6) months.
f) Equipment training is lacking in adequate supervision. It is not in the
best interest of the employees to take large equipment out on their lunch
hour and teach themselves to operate cemetery equipment. This policy, or
lack thereof, could be an explanation for the high cost of repairs to Cemetery
District equipment and employees should not be blamed.
g) Employees working at remote sites have no access to District owned
cellular phones.
3
IV. The next concern this Grand Jury had was in the area of employee
relations. Using the aforementioned authority ( Penal Code 933.5) and the
same methods of investigation we noted the following:
a) The Board policy manual states that the District Manager is to maintain
good relations with the employees. It is the findings of the Grand Jury there
are strained relations between management and staff.
b) The Grand Jury has found that management has made discriminatory
remarks on several occasions. These types of remarks should not be made at
all even in jest.
c) The Grand Jury finds that management has engaged in inappropriate
personal behavior. This is unprofessional behavior and should not occur.
d) Witnesses report that management undercuts the authority and
credibility of some of the foremen. Management will frequently change the
employee work assignments after the work orders were received by the
foremen. Management will wait until jobs are assigned by the foremen and
then go directly to the employees and tell them to do something different and
deny asking the foremen to assign the original task.
e) Employees are intimidated and in fear of losing their jobs if they voice
any concerns to the Board or this Grand Jury. Several potential witnesses
expressed fear over their employment if management discovered they were
unhappy. Employees are not only discouraged from voicing concerns and
complaints to the Cemetery Board, but are openly prevented from doing so.
It is impossible for employees to voice complaints to the board with the
present system of having the District Manager:
( 1) Take the minutes of all meetings
( 2) Set all items to be presented to the board
( 3) Present the complaining employee to the board
( 4) Require the employee to obtain the District Manager’s permission to
address the board.
The Grand Jury finds that employees may have been disciplined and
retaliated against for making complaints. Indeed, it was noted after
appearing before the Grand Jury several employees were singled out for
criticism with regard to their job performance in subsequent minutes of the
Board of Trustee meetings.
f) Employees do not know about grievance procedures because the new
procedures have not been provided to them.
g) Overtime is another point of contention for the employees. It is not
assigned on an equal basis.
h) The Board’s policy states that employees will have an annual pay
increase, but some employees have had no increase for three ( 3) or more
4
years. Some employees have been told that there is no money in the budget
for increases while others have received pay increases. This is not an
evenhanded way to manage employee pay raises. The binder that was
distributed to the Grand Jury states that each employee is given a yearly
performance evaluation and raises are based on this evaluation. Some
employees have not had an evaluation for several years as evidenced by
employee provided records.
i) Employee evaluations are made with no input from their direct
supervisor/ foreman.
j) The Grand Jury found some part time employees are receiving vacation
and holiday pay against Board policy.
V. This Grand Jury is concerned about the potential for abuses in the area of
some expenditures.
a) One of them is fuel and the lack of locking devices on the four fuel tanks
to deter unauthorized usage. There is no measuring equipment on the tanks
to measure the amount of fuel being dispensed or remaining in the tanks.
Gravity flow measuring equipment can be purchased for under $ 200.00
each. An accounting procedure should be initiated to record fuel usage for
each piece of equipment. All indications are that as fuel prices increase
more fuel is being purchased. The increase in fuel purchases is being made
without any changes in operation. The Grand Jury is puzzled as to why.
b) Card/ lock fuel purchases are used to purchase gasoline for the District
Manager’s District vehicle. The Grand Jury requested random warrants for
the period between 6/ 8/ 05 and 10/ 13/ 05. The Grand Jury noted that omitted
in the billings were vehicle numbers, odometer readings, and miles per
gallon. Of the nine ( 9) warrants pulled in the item above, Board members
signed only three ( 3). The other six ( 6) warrants were approved by only the
District Manager and not by any of the Board of Trustees. It should also be
noted that fuel delivered to the two ( 2) District locations is more expensive
than fuel being bought at one of the card/ lock stations.
c) When this Grand Jury visited the Hanford Cemetery on 10/ 2/ 05, we were
told there were four credit cards used to make purchases. The cards
consisted of: Smart and Final, The Home Depot, Staples, and Orchard
Supply Hardware. The Grand Jury requested six ( 6) random warrants from
the period of 6/ 13/ 05 through 9/ 15/ 05 for our review. The Grand Jury found
that of those six ( 6) warrants Board of Trustees had signed only two ( 2) for
approval. The other four ( 4) contained only the signature of the District
Manager. The person making the purchase should not be the only person
approving the purchase. This might give the appearance of impropriety.
5
d) This Grand Jury found no evidence that an auditing procedure was used
to verify the merchandise bought was received and used at the Cemetery
District.
e) The Grand Jury questioned the finance charges on two of the billings
( Staples and OSH).
f) The statement from Orchard Supply Hardware was not under the name
of the Cemetery District but was under the name of an employee.
VI. The Board Policy Book is completely outdated and our findings are that
it should be revised.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Board of Trustees should be fully accountable for the operation of
the Hanford Cemetery District.
2. The Board of Trustees should update the Board Policies and adhere to the
same policies. All documents should be dated.
3. The Board of Trustees should curtail the eight ( 8) daily visits to each
cemetery, especially the Lakeside and Kings River Cemeteries.
4. The Management and staff should be aware of the needs of bereaved
families and more aware of good public relations.
5. Shoring equipment should be used at every gravesite excavation of 5” or
more, per Cal- OSHA requirements.
6. The Board of Trustees should provide all employees with and require the
use of hearing protection.
7. The Board of Trustees should provide an eyewash station at all locations
when and where legally required, including outlying cemetery locations.
8. The Board of Trustees should provide the employees that are working at
a remote site with a cell phone to use in case of emergency.
9. The Board of Trustees should place, maintain and update safety
information as well as employee rights information at all locations that have
permanent employees.
10. The Board of Trustees should consider holding safety meetings more
than semi- annually. A more realistic schedule would be a minimum of
every other month.
11. The Board of Trustees should establish a training program to teach
employees to use the equipment that does not include them “ going out back
on their lunch hour and digging holes”.
12. The Board of Trustees should institute a method for the employees to
voice complaints and concerns to them directly.
6
13. The Board of Trustees should review the Kings County Employee
Handbook and should create and provide a similar one for District
employees, which includes explanations of benefits and grievance
procedures. A signed dated receipt should be required of each employee.
14. The Board of Trustees should establish a fair and impartial policy of
assigning overtime so that all employees may be included.
15. The Board of Trustees should confirm that annual performance
evaluations are conducted and appropriate pay increases awarded.
16. The Board of Trustees should install measuring devices and locks on all
fuel tanks. They should also initiate an accounting procedure for recording
fuel usage.
17. The Board of Trustees should adopt a procedure of buying most fuel
with a card/ lock if and when it is economically advantageous to do so.
18. The Board of Trustees should require odometer reading, vehicle
numbers and miles per gallon be listed on all card/ lock purchases.
19. The Board of Trustees should require more than one signature on all
warrants and require that the purchaser not be one of the signers.
20. The Board of Trustees should institute a procedure whereby purchases
are checked to insure that all the order has arrived and is being used in the
proper manner.
21. The Board of Trustees should review all part time employee pay records
to determine if improper wages were paid for vacation or holiday.
22. The Board of Trustees should audio record all Board of Trustees
meetings and hold the recordings for 6 months before destroying.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 ( c) the following agency is
required to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this
report within 90 days.
􀂃 Hanford Cemetery District Board of Trustees
7
Attachments:
Copy of Blue Bound Booklet handed out to the Grand Jury on their visit
October 2, 2005.
( All personal identifying information has been deleted from this
attachment.)
Copy of Kings County Employee Handbook dated June 2005
8
ADDENDUM TO REPORT BY THE 2005- 2006
GRAND JURY REPORT ON
THE HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT
The Hanford Cemetery District responded to the preliminary report on the
Cemetery District issued by the Kings County Grand Jury on January 18, 2006.
The Grand Jury wishes to clarify some of its findings and some of the misleading
responses by the Cemetery District.
1. The Board response stated, “ The Board also takes exception to the manner
in which they were interrogated by the Grand Jury at the District Attorney’s
office. The Grand Jury would like to point out that the Grand Jury
scheduled the appointment for the interviews with the Board members at
the convenience of the Board members. The Grand Jury gave the Board a
list of 5 ( five) possible dates to conduct the interviews. The Board chose
the date that was convenient to them. The Grand Jury requested the use of
the District Attorney’s office in order to keep from inconveniencing the
Board members. There was never at any time the intention to “ interrogate”
the Board members but to simply gather information. The interviews
proved very useful to the Grand Jury, in spite of the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the incident that the Board refers to in its response
concerning rude and demanding remarks did happen. What the Board fails
to mention in its response is that another member of the Grand Jury was
there and immediately apologized to the Board member and the entire
Board and quickly assured the Board that the Grand Jury did not work in
that fashion and had no intention of directing the Sheriff or anyone else to
compel their cooperation.
2. The Board responded that “ the Grand Jury was not willing to listen to its
responses during the interview process and made its findings and reached
its conclusions based entirely upon what the complaining witnesses told
them.”
The Grand Jury not only listened to what each Board member had to say
but even wrote down each and every response and has that record in its
files. Each Board member responded to the exact same questions. The
Grand Jury referred to those responses in not only writing its report but for
this addendum as well.
3. The Board responded, “ The Report clearly implied that the Board and/ or its
management staff were ‘ stealing’ from the District and the public.” That
was not the intention of the Grand Jury nor did the Grand Jury wish to
47
imply that the Board or management was “ stealing”. What the report said
was, “ The Grand Jury is concerned about the potential for abuses in the
area of some expenditures” ( italics and underline added). It was the desire
and intention of the Grand Jury to assist the Board in protecting itself from
the appearance of impropriety.
4. Quoting from its response, the Board states, “ The District Board is open
and available to all the District employees.” The interviews conducted by
the Grand Jury with the members of the District Board indicated otherwise.
Our interviews found that 3 ( three) out of the 5 ( five) Board members flatly
stated that they would have NO contact with employees of the District. The
Grand Jury recommended that all the Board members be available to
District employees-- not the minority of its members.
5. The Board’s response to the District Manager visiting each cemetery a
minimum of eight times a day states, “ When the Grand Jury questioned the
Board about the quoted statement, the Grand Jury was told that it was
misprint and that obviously the District Manager cannot visit each of the
four cemeteries eight times a day.” When the Grand Jury was provided
with the blue bound booklet the District Manager read aloud each and every
page with the vice- chairman of the Board present. Neither of them
corrected this statement. When the Grand Jury interviewed the Board
members the responses to that particular question ranged from, “ I’m sure he
does” to “ That’s must be a misprint”.
6. The Board response concerning the number of funerals per year at Lakeside
and Kings River cemeteries averaging two to three a year does not appear
consistent with the Grand Jury’s field observation of only 3 ( three) possible
burials at Kings River since 2000 and only 1 ( one) possible at Lakeside.
7. The Board responded that it investigated the finding that “ management staff
has been disrespectful to families of deceased members on numerous
occasions” and determined that “ District management staff had not been
discourteous or disrespectful of families or friends of the deceased on any
occasion, let alone on numerous occasions.” The Grand Jury would like to
know the Board’s method of investigating this finding. Our investigation
indicated otherwise.
8. “ The Board acknowledges the requirement for shoring in graves that
exceed sixty inches in depth. The District will contact other districts in the
area to determine what is the best method of providing such shoring and
shall provide it in the future.” The Grand Jury finds that the District should
be contacting Cal- OSHA not other districts for Cal- OSHA requirements.
This shoring should be implemented immediately not in the future since
approximately one- half of the graves are 60” or deeper according to the
District’s own staff.
9. The Board investigated the assertion that the employees were trained by
sending employees out on their lunch hour to learn by trial and error and
48
did not determine this to be true. The Grand Jury arrived at this finding by
witness interviews stating that all employees desiring training on the back-hoe
were told to use their lunch hour to teach themselves by digging and
refilling holes in the back portion of the cemetery.
10. “ The Board will establish a policy that employees working at remote sites
without telephone service will have access to either a personal cellular
phone or a District- owned cellular phone.” The Grand Jury responds that
personal cell phones should not be required for communication on
company time unless the District will a pay a portion of the employee’s
bill.
11. The Board stated that it investigated the finding that “… after appearing
before the Grand Jury several employees were singled out for criticism
with regard to their job performance in subsequent minutes of the Board of
Trustee meetings.” And found “ the District Manager has done nothing to
intimidate employees or to…” One of the District Board members stated to
the Grand Jury that they were aware that the District Manager did write a
reprimand on one employee for addressing concerns directly to the Board.
The Grand Jury noted that the minutes of the Board meetings reflect
criticism of employees that appeared in front of this Grand Jury and the
criticism appears directly after their appearance. The Grand Jury does not
believe this was coincidence.
12. The Board stated, “ There has been no such increase in fuel consumption”
in response to the Grand Jury’s findings that “ All indications are that as
fuel prices increase more fuel is being purchased. The increase in fuel
purchases is being made without any changes in operation.” The Grand
Jury requested and received invoices indicating increases fuel
consumption. The Board has access to these same invoices.
The Board states it “ is unaware of the cost of gravity- flow measuring
devices” yet the Grand Jury was able to obtain this information with only
one visit to Silva’s Oil.
13. In regard to the Grand Jury finding concerning card/ lock fuel purchases,
lack of vehicle numbers, odometer readings, and miles per gallon
information on invoices as well as increased cost of delivered fuel vs. fuel
bought at card/ lock locations, the Board does not disagree. The Grand Jury
would like to know what action will be taken and when.
14. The Board does not disagree with the Grand Jury finding concerning only
the signature of the purchaser on the warrant to be paid appearing to be
improper. The Grand Jury would like to know what action will be taken
and when.
15. “ The Board does not disagree with the finding that the Grand Jury did not
find an auditing procedure.” The Grand Jury would like to know what
action will be taken and when.
49
16. “ The Board disagreed with the finding that the OSH credit card account is
in the name of a District employee. All four of the District’s credit card
accounts are in the name of the District with the manager’s name for ID
purchasing.” The Grand Jury is concerned that when the Board members
were interviewed three members of the Board were unaware of any District
credit cards and two members thought that the credit cards were kept in the
office, not carried by the District Manager in his wallet. All 5 ( five)
members thought that all warrants were approved by the Board but the
Grand Jury obtained warrants from the District that had only the signature
of the District Manager.
17. The Board disagrees with the finding that the Board Policy Book is
completely outdated and that it should be revised.” The Grand Jury wishes
to cite just a few examples that led to the conclusion that the Policy Book
needs revision. The Board Policy Book that the Grand Jury was provided
contained an outline of the office manager’s duties. There is no longer an
office manager only a clerk. The Policy Book speaks of the District
Superintendent instead of a District Manager, it calls for a 3 ( three) member
Board instead of the present 5 ( five) member board, it clearly states that the
Board Members are to receive no compensation vs. the $ 50.00 per meeting
now in place. These are just a few examples of the Policy Book being old
and outdated.
COMMENT:
The Grand Jury would like to assure the District Board that it is not their intention
to harass or accuse any of the Board members. It is the intention of the Grand Jury
to point out areas that the Grand Jury feels would help improve the services
provided to the public. The Grand Jury would like to assist the District Board
Members in avoiding all appearance of impropriety in order to spare the members
the embarrassment and inconvenience of defending themselves when it could be
avoided. The public has little thought for the District except in the worst of
circumstances. The Grand Jury acknowledges that the job of the District Board is
largely difficult and unrewarded.
RESPONSE TO ADDENDUM:
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 933.05 the following agency is
required to respond to this addendum to the report.
• Hanford Cemetery District Board of Trustees
50
FIRST 5 OF KINGS COUNTY
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury appreciates the work and effort that First 5 has
expended toward improving services to the children 0- 5 of Kings County.
Additional opportunities for growth have been provided by the seven ( 7) Family
Resource Centers (“ FRC’s”) located in Armona, Corcoran, Hanford ( 2), Home
Garden, Kettleman City and Lemoore.
As stated in the First 5 Kings County Report to the Community:
First 5 Kings County Children and Families Commission was
established as a result of the passage of Proposition 10 which
levied a $. 50 sales tax on all tobacco products. The majority of
the revenues generated by this tax is distributed to local
commissions to fund services to children and their families.
Each county commission is tasked with establishing where
funding will be most effective. First 5 Kings County Children
and Families Commission has set forth a number of Local
Initiatives to best address the needs of children and families of
Kings County. The Local Initiatives include: Family Resource
Centers, Childcare Accreditation, Children’s Health, School
Readiness and Special Projects. All services funded through
First 5 Kings County fall within one of these areas and seek to
provide considerable impact through identified strategic result
areas.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury’s authority to investigate is pursuant to California
Penal Code § 925 which states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the
operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of the
county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative
district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the
officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity of the districts.”
51
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
The Kings County Grand Jury investigated as a follow up to the 2004- 2005 Grand
Jury report.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted, visitations made and documents researched.
FINDINGS:
1. The Consent For Release of Information and Authorization To Refer To
Community Resources form is written in English on one side and Spanish
on the back side. The required signatures are on the English side even
when the client speaks only Spanish.
2. First 5 staff visits to Family Resource Centers are structured with an agenda
created by the First 5 staff.
3. Most communication initiated by First 5 is via e- mail.
4. Even with the extensive effort made by First 5 to inform the Kings County
community of the programs available, the message is not getting out.
5. Many Family Resource Center staff members are not properly trained in the
use of the computer program and in the creation and retrieval of required
reports.
6. In reviewing the financial statement provided by the Accounting
Department of Kings County, the Kings County Grand Jury found that
more than 23% of the First 5 income from the State was expended for
administrative costs. This amount is calculated on the figures provided by
the county as to administrative costs. First 5 includes grants the State of
California mandates be distributed directly by First 5, and First 5 has no
discretion in the expenditure of these funds, thus lowering the percentage of
administrative costs-- First 5 is strictly a pass through agency on behalf of
the State of California for those funds. This makes it appear that
administrative costs are lower than they actually would be based strictly on
funds allocated directly to First 5.
7. Prospective grantees have reported difficulty with the grant application
process used by First 5. It creates barriers for worthy agencies applying for
funds. In researching First 5 websites from other counties we find
significant help with the application process which is not available through
Kings County First 5. One very successful and viable FRC recently
severed ties with First 5 because of the difficulty of dealing with the ever-changing
requirements of the local agency.
8. The current Grand Jury continues to be concerned about the makeup of the
First 5 Commission. The Grand Jury agrees that the appointments made by
52
the Board of Supervisors were “ lawful” ( per response to the 2004- 2005
Kings County Grand Jury Report) but question their appropriateness ( per
response to the 2004- 2005 Kings County Grand Jury Report). It would
obviously be beneficial both to the community and the Commission to have
input from recipients of the services provided by First 5.
9. Financial pressure by First 5 caused Family NetworKings to dissolve,
eliminating the assistance to the FRC’s in finding and writing grants and
facilitating meetings among the FRC directors.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. All forms should be printed in both English and Spanish with self carbonized
paper used as needed. Signatures should be on the same side of the form which
includes the written answers.
2. Informal visits should be made by First 5 staff ( including the Executive
Director) to the FRC’s. There should not always be an agenda but be an
opportunity for Directors to express their needs for help.
3. Communication should be a two way person- to- person relationship which
promotes questions and a better understanding.
4. Special emphasis should be placed on creating additional outreach for potential
clients and their families, such as:
a. Public announcements should be made on radio and television stations
( both Spanish and English). These would be of help in communicating the
services and programs available to Kings County residents.
b. Flyers should be written in both English and Spanish using words that are
easily understood. These should be made available at churches, doctor’s
offices, etc.
c. All communications should make clear that the programs are for all
children 0- 5, regardless of income.
5. A more effective program of in- service training should be developed for
computer program use and form completion.
6. More money should be spent on funding programs than on administration costs.
7. Find ways to fund worthy projects, not throwing up artificial roadblocks which
encourage applicants to withdraw from the First 5 application process.
8. It is the Kings County Grand Jury’s recommendation that private citizens be
added to the First 5 Commission. It would obviously be beneficial to both the
community and to the Commission to have input from beneficiaries of the
services to be provided by First 5. Other counties have done this with much
success. Examples include Inyo, Glenn, Lake, Monterey and Siskiyou.
9. First 5 should establish a system to help the FRC’s with writing grants. This
could be accomplished by locating grant writing firms and sharing the
information or by developing an “ in house” grant writing system.
53
COMMENTS:
An article from the San Diego Union Tribune dated June 11, 2006 stated:
The agency established by Reiner’s previous initiative [ Prop. 10,
The California Children and Families Act] has spent $ 230 million on
advertising and public relations consultants since it was established
in 1999. The Legislature has talked about fixing First 5. Forcing the
agency to spend its money directly on helping kids would be a great
first step.
The continued scrutiny of the $ 700 million bureaucracy created by the poorly
drafted Prop 10 is an invitation for waste and fraud. First 5 at the state level is
currently under investigation and an audit is due to be completed in late August
First 5 Kings County needs to set the highest possible standards for the wise use of
funds to benefit the children of Kings County.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
• Kings County Board of Supervisors
54
KINGS WASTE AND RECYLING AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTION:
The Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (“ KWRA”) was formed in 1989 as a
Joint Powers Authority (“ JPA”) in order to comply with California Integrated
Waste Management Act ( the “ Act”; California Public Resources Code § 40000 et
seq). The JPA consists of Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford and unincorporated Kings
County., The Act requires all California cities, counties and regional agencies,
such as KWRA, to reduce the amount of garbage ( in the form of recyclable
material), going to local landfills, by 50% by the year 2000.
At the present time, Kings County is at approximately 47% of the state recycling
goal. It is anticipated that the 50% goal will be achieved when the Lemoore
recycling program begins later this year. There is a consideration that the State of
California will raise this requirement to 75% in the near future.
Avenal elected not to join when the JPA was formed and reports its recycling data
and diversion percentage directly to the California Integrated Waste Management
Board.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
The Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of KWRA for an orientation brief
and a tour of the entire facility. In addition, the Grand Jury met with a
representative from the Hanford Public Works Department and a member of the
Hanford City Council.
FINDINGS:
1. The Material Recovery Facility (“ MRF”) opened on November 21, 1995.
KWRA receives no subsidies from JPA cities and receives no tax dollars.
KWRA processes all municipal waste collected within the JPA and hand-sorts
recyclable material from the waste stream. KWRA acts as a transfer
station for residue being transferred to the landfill at Chemical Waste
Management near Kettleman City. KWRA has a 16- acre composting
operation which processes green waste collected in the green waste
recycling bins in the three member cities, and material delivered directly to
55
the KWRA site by individual householders. City garbage is collected
Monday through Friday and is delivered to KWRA’S 92,000 square foot
MRF. Material is deposited on the floor and either pushed to the “ main
line” for hand- separated recyclable material collection or delivered to a
staging area for transfer to the landfill. Material staged for transfer without
sorting is contaminated with everything from water treatment plant sludge,
raw food waste, dairy waste and other contaminants. A small percentage of
material received in clear plastic bags is recovered because it is easily
identified as recyclable. Material delivered in black bags, or other bags,
that cannot be seen through, goes directly to the staging area for transfer to
landfill.
2. No local tax money goes to this operation— grants and the sale of
recyclables provide a small percentage of their income. The major source
of the income to KWRA is tipping fees.
3. The KWRA has been operating profitably only for the last two years.
4. The original cost of starting the KWRA was $ 12.5 million dollars and the
bond taken out to finance this will be paid off in 2014.
5. The entire plant design was made to process the yellow bag recycling
program. This program failed because of lack of a commitment by
leadership, lack of education of the public and lack of enforcement
mandates.
6. A five ( 5) member board of directors does most of the decision making.
Two members are from the Kings County Board of Supervisors, and one
city council member from the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Lemoore.
7. The KWRA Executive Director is in charge of the plant’s operational
procedures but does not have enforcement power.
8. The last time that tipping fees were raised by KWRA was in the year 2002
but the cost to some residents has increased several times due to fee
increases imposed by their respective cities.
9. Green waste dumping fees were reduced 50% ($ 70.00 per ton to $ 35.00 a
ton) several years ago but the savings was not passed on to the residents.
10. Recycled items are sold to the highest bidder daily with about one half sent
to American companies and the other half sent to foreign companies.
11. It is believed that about 70% of the 400 to 450 tons received daily are
recyclable but with the present operation only about 30% is recycled. For
example, in May 2006, the daily average was 435 tons therefore, only 91
tons were recycled daily with an estimated 213 recyclable tons going into a
landfill each day.
12. a) From 7/ 1/ 03 through 6/ 30/ 04 120,059.95 tons of waste was
processed.
b) From 7/ 1/ 04 to 6/ 30/ 05 127,413.95 tons of waste was processed.
This leaves a total increase of 7,354 tons ( 6.13%) more than a year
earlier.
56
c) It is estimated from 7/ 1/ 05 to 6/ 30/ 06 that 136,072.69 tons of waste
will be processed. This is an increase of 8,658.74 tons ( 6.8%) over the
previous year.
13. The general public can buy the green waste compost for $ 15.00 ( fifteen
dollars) per cubic yard.
SCHOOL BIN RECYCLING PROGRAM
The School site Source Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program Act
( California Public Resources Code § § 42630 through 42647) requires that each
school board have a recyclable program. The bill which passed on February 21,
2001 stated “ The bill would require each school district, by July 1, 2004, to adopt
a resolution committing the district to implement the SWRP ( school waste
reduction plan) and would require each school district by July 1, 2006 to
commence the full implementation of the SWRP.” A total of 20% ( twenty
percent) of the money received by selling the recyclables in each school’s program
is returned to the school by KWRA. Each school’s principal is accountable for the
location of the recyclable bin, the clean up around the bin, and notification to the
KWRA that the bin is full and needs to be emptied. All recyclable items can be
placed in the bin and will be separated at the KWRA.
The school bin recycling program is at the present time the most efficient program
in operation in Hanford and yet according to the senate bill introduction “ after
more than 20 years, just 40 percent of the school districts have paper recycling
programs… The bill would require a school district, when designing and
constructing new public school facilities, to allocate adequate space for the safe
collection, storage and loading of recyclable materials and to incorporate the use
of recycled materials in the construction of new public school facilities.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recycling training programs to be presented to the students at schools with
recyclable bins.
2. The Kings County Grand Jury highly recommends that the semi- annual
check issued to the schools should be made out to the individual school’s
Associated Student Body to be used as a reward to the students during that
school year.
3. All planning departments in Kings County should require all new
businesses to allow space for a recyclable bin on their property or within
their complex.
4. All KWRA recyclable bins should be marked with a telephone number for
anyone to call and notify them that the bin is full and should be picked up.
57
5. The Kings County Grand Jury recommends that once a month, for at least
six months, advertisements in the various areas that KWRA serves list what
is recyclable material and where the recyclable and “ E” ( electronic)- waste
bins are located.
6. At least six times a year the KWRA should be open for the general public
to take waste material at no cost.
7. There should be an incentive ( perhaps in the form of reduced monthly
rates) offered to existing businesses, apartment complexes, and mobile
home parks to provide space for a recyclable bin for a period of time. This
incentive should only be in effect for a firm period of time and then
available space should be made mandatory after that time.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Act requires counties to go to a recyclable program. It is a law-- NOT AN
OPTION.
The initial cost of starting as well as training the general public to accept the third
can recyclable program will be time- consuming and costly. The outcome after the
program is in operation will be lower future trash removal costs, fewer landfills
and reduced usage of the world’s natural resources. We should not let political
decisions regarding recycling interfere with future generations’ existence.
Leadership, education, and enforcement with the city, county, and school officials
will ensure a smooth transition and make sure that the program will be successful.
WITHOUT THIS FIRM COOPERATION THE PROGRAM WILL FAIL!
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
• Board of Directors for KWRA
58
CITY OF HANFORD WASTE AND RECYCLING
PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION:
The Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (“ KWRA”) was formed in 1989 as a
Joint Powers Authority (“ JPA”) in order to comply with California Integrated
Waste Management Act ( the “ Act”; California Public Resources Code § 40000 et
seq). The JPA consists of Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford and parts of
unincorporated Kings County. The Act requires all California cities, counties or
regional jurisdictions, such as KWRA, to reduce the amount of garbage ( in the
form of recyclable material) going to local landfills by 50% by the year 2000.
At the present time, Kings County is at approximately 47% of the state recycling
goal. It is anticipated that the 50% goal will be achieved when the City of
Lemoore recycling program begins later this year. There is a consideration that the
State of California will raise this requirement to 75% in the near future.
Avenal elected not to join when the JPA was formed and reports their recycling
data and diversion percentage directly to the California Integrated Waste
Management Board.
Since it is very hard to report on the KWRA and not include others in the
investigation and findings, the Grand Jury has chosen to issue a report on the City
of Hanford’s efforts to manage waste and to recycle usable materials.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
The Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of KWRA for an orientation brief
and a tour of the entire facility. In addition, the Grand Jury met with a
representative from the Hanford Public Works Department and a member of the
Hanford City Council.
FINDINGS:
1. City of Hanford’s recycling program of separating green waste from
household waste has become very successful.
59
2. Hanford City trash pickup trucks have lights inside the truck bays so that
the driver can see what is being dumped from each resident’s trash barrel.
3. Hanford City trash pickup trucks have cameras inside the truck bays to
record improper dumping from each resident’s trash barrel.
4. Fines for improper dumping in the trash barrels in the City of Hanford are
added to the residents’ water bill.
5. Only trash trucks being loaded from the side take the trash to the KWRA
for possible recycling.
6. Trash from trucks loaded from the rear or front is taken to the KWRA to be
loaded onto trucks and taken directly to the landfill for burial.
7. It is believed that 70% of commercial trash is recyclable but at the present
time 0% is processed for recycling. However, some of the large retail
stores have invested in equipment, maintenance and labor costs to compact
and resell for profit their waste cardboard. This shows that additional
enforcement by the City of Hanford in recycling cardboard could be a
monetary advantage to the city.
8. There are no recyclable bins at any apartment complexes or mobile home
parks. All trash picked up at these locations is loaded onto trucks for burial
in the landfill.
9. Hanford has no requirement that recyclable bins be available for use by any
businesses.
10. It is estimated that not more than 10% of recyclables are from the Hanford
City waste stream.
11. Only clear plastic bags where the contents can be seen will be opened for
possible recycling.
12. The City of Hanford does have a program in which businesses can place
clean waste cardboard next to their trash bin and it will be picked up
weekly. The program began in 2002. Since the start of the program the
cardboard tonnage pick up has been less each year after the first year. For
example:
a) in 2003 192.53 tons were recycled
b) in 2004 161.73 tons were recycled
c) in 2005 130.75 tons were recycled
In this period of time new growth in businesses has occurred yet total recyclable
cardboard pickup was reduced.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City of Hanford to encourage the school districts to expand recycling
training programs to the students at schools with recyclable bins.
60
2. All Planning Departments in Kings County should require all new
businesses to allow space for a recyclable bin on their property or within
their complex.
3. There should be an incentive ( perhaps in the form of reduced monthly
rates) offered to existing businesses, apartment complexes, and mobile
home parks in the city to provide space for a recyclable bin for a period of
time. This incentive will only be in effect for a firm period of time and
then mandatory after that time.
4. The Kings County Grand Jury believes that an action committee should be
appointed with residents outside of government authority to:
a) Study the present city trash operations and recommend to the
Hanford City Council any improvements that could reduce costs and
improve service.
b) Present a recommendation to the City of Hanford adopting a third
can recycling program. The study should include findings of:
1. Using the existing black trash barrel for recyclables and
providing a much smaller new third barrel for household waste.
2. A study of the comparable cost and efficiency advantage for
all Hanford residents using city operated versus a private
contractor.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Act requires all counties to implement an effective recyclable program. It is a
law-- NOT AN OPTION.
The initial cost of starting as well as training the general public to accept the third
can recyclable program will be time- consuming and costly. The outcome after the
program is in operation will be lower future trash removal costs, fewer landfills
and reduced usage of the world’s natural resources. We should not let politics
interfere with future generations’ existence.
Leadership, education, and enforcement with the city, county, and school officials
will ensure a smooth transition and make sure the program will be successful.
WITHOUT THIS FIRM COOPERATION THE PROGRAM WILL FAIL!
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:
• Hanford City Council
61
THE DEMISE OF FORT ROOSEVELT
SYNOPSIS:
2005- 2006 Kings County Grand Jury received several requests to investigate the
closing of Fort Roosevelt. This had been a viable and ongoing classroom for
Kings County children since the 1960’ s. A letter was received by “ families and
friends of Fort Roosevelt” on October 17, 2004 from the Hanford Elementary
School Superintendent’s Office that stated that the Fort was to be temporarily
closed because of unsafe conditions and they would “ work diligently to find a way
to solve this problem.”
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Public outcry about the sudden announcement in the Hanford Sentinel dated June
2, 2005 regarding the closing of Fort Roosevelt.
AUTHORITY:
Our authority is pursuant to § § 933.5 and 933.6 of the California Penal Code as to
the investigation of the method or system of performing the duties of a school
district or a non- profit corporation acting on behalf of a school district.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted, documents researched, and a site visit was made.
PART ONE: Timeline regarding closing of Fort Roosevelt
08- 02- 04 Letter from architect warning HESD Superintendent’s Office of safety
concerns about the walls surrounding the Fort and the Board’s
personal liability exposure.
10- 13- 04 HESD Board of Trustees was warned that the condition of the Fort
was not good and that it presented a liability problem.
10- 17- 04 Letter to parents and friends telling of temporary closing.
10- 20- 04 Fort Roosevelt Board assigns collection to California State University,
Fresno.
12- 13- 04 HESD received letter from second architect confirming that poles at
the Fort were in bad condition.
02- 07- 05 Letter from CSUF to Fort personnel acknowledging acceptance of the
Fort Roosevelt Museum collection.
03- 09- 05 The HESD Superintendent’s Office reported to HESD Board of
Trustees that the Fort Roosevelt Board had appointed CSUF to restore
the collection with approximately $ 10,000 in shared costs.
04- 26- 05 HESD Superintendent’s Office letter to CSUF regarding collection
and telling of scheduled demolition of the Fort in July, 2005.
04- 26- 05 Letter to Fort personnel from Superintendent’s Office telling them to
have everything of importance removed from the Fort by July 1, 2005
as demolition was scheduled to begin.
05- 19- 05 Letter from CSUF to Superintendent’s Office informing them of the
$ 155,210 value of the Fort Roosevelt Museum collection.
06- 02- 05 Article in Hanford Sentinel announcing to the community for the first
time the closing of Fort Roosevelt.
08- 10- 05 HESD discussion of elderberry bushes and request from new Save
Fort Roosevelt Committee for a sixty- day stay to allow them time to
form a business plan.
08- 24- 05 HESD Board of Trustees grants sixty- day stay to Save Fort Roosevelt
Committee.
09- 14- 05 Save Fort Roosevelt Committee asks for permission to enter Fort but
was denied for insurance and safety reasons.
12- 19- 05 Demolition began at Fort Roosevelt.
PART TWO: Hanford Elementary School District ( HESD)
2
Highlights of the agreement between HESD and Fort Board as of July, 1983
( Agreement attached in its entirety as Exhibit “ A”)
Findings:
1. That the District is the owner of the property commonly known as Fort
Roosevelt, located at 870 W. Davis Street, Hanford, California.
2. The District leases the facilities of Fort Roosevelt to the Fort Roosevelt
Board for $ 1.00 ( One Dollar).
3. The District, its agents and representatives, shall have the right, during term
of this agreement, to enter Fort Roosevelt for the purpose of inspection and
to ascertain if the Fort Board is performing according to the terms of this
agreement.
4. As a rider under the District’s insurance policies, the Fort Board agrees to
abide by any and all recommendations made at the time of annual safety
inspections made by District’s insurance carrier or their representatives, and
to make necessary repairs as indicated by same inspections.
Finding outside agreement:
HESD Board of Trustees and the Fort Roosevelt Board assigned ownership of the
Fort Roosevelt Museum’s vertebrae and feather collection, later valued at
$ 155,210.00, to California State University, Fresno. HESD Board of Trustees also
committed $ 10,000.00 to assist in the restoration of the collection.
PART TWO: Fort Roosevelt Board
Per agreement between HESD Superintendent’s Office and Fort Roosevelt
Board as of July 1983
Finding:
That the Fort Board hereby agrees to accept responsibility of the property and
operation of Fort Roosevelt, including:
( a) Fort Board agrees to hold District harmless, and defend all claims, from
loss or damage to property and for all injury to persons resulting from Fort
Board’s use of the Fort Roosevelt facilities.
( b) The Fort Board agrees to accept all financial responsibility for the
operation of the Fort facilities, including, but not limited to, any debt incurred
by Fort Board regarding operation of these facilities.
3
( c) Fort Board agrees to maintain premises in good repair and tenable
condition, including, but not limited to, fence, buildings, grounds, equipment,
animals, etc., during the period of lease. No items will be removed without
District approval.
( d) This agreement may be terminated by either party, at their sole discretion,
by giving written notice to the other 30 days in advance. Upon such a
termination, costs due the District shall be prorated to the date of termination
and shall be due and payable upon such date, and upon termination of this
agreement, the Fort Board will leave the premises as they found it, excluding
normal wear and tear.
Findings outside of agreement
1. The Fort Roosevelt organizational committee was very lax in setting up a
viable board and when members dropped from active participation
replacements were not named. Most members lost interest in serving and there
were only two active board members left at the end.
2. The Grand Jury found no inventory of Fort property. Also, two prominent
features of the Fort, the windmill and wagon, are missing.
3. Papers of incorporation and by- laws for the Fort Board were drawn up but
never filed. No filing was listed in California Secretary of State records.
4. No records of minutes or meetings can be found.
5. Community help was repeatedly offered for restoration of the Fort but
was turned down by Fort staff.
CONCLUSIONS:
After many interviews and reviewing documents in regards to the Fort the Grand
Jury finds that neglect on the part of the Fort Roosevelt Board and lack of Hanford
Elementary School District supervision led to the demise of Fort Roosevelt. Fort
Roosevelt was allowed to deteriorate to the point of being unsalvageable and had
to be torn down. Future generations will be denied the hands- on experience of Fort
Roosevelt.
4
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None.
COMMENTS:
It is hoped by the Grand Jury that the Save Fort Roosevelt Committee continues its
efforts in developing an appropriate replacement for the old Fort Roosevelt.
RESPONSE:
This is an informational report. No formal response to the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury
report is required.
5
EXHIBIT TO REPORT
AGREEMENT
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
SYNOPSIS:
The Grand Jury examined the County’s method of disposing of surplus property.
Previously, auctions were held to dispose of surplus items not recycled within the
various county departments. Such auctions are no longer feasible. The Grand Jury
examined the
A new policy was developed in August, 2005. The warehouse, which had been
full, was cleaned out and the area devoted to surplus property was greatly reduced
in size. The new policy includes using the Kings County website to inform
departments of available items and directives limiting what items will go to the
warehouse. It also adds new responsibilities as job descriptions have been
expanded to include overseeing the disposition of surplus property.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
A request was made that the Grand Jury investigate the way surplus County
equipment is disposed.
AUTHORITY:
Our authority is pursuant to California Penal Code § 925.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted, documents researched, made.
PART ONE
PAST PROCEDURE
Findings:
1. Personnel from the Kings County Finance Department were interviewed.
Kings County no longer holds public auctions of surplus property. They
were found not to be cost effective, and have not been held for about ten
71
years. Kings County does not have adequate personnel or finances to
manage auctions.
2. Under the prior system, some department heads took the initiative to obtain
surplus equipment from the warehouse, thus saving taxpayers’ dollars.
PART TWO
CURRENT PROCEDURE
Findings:
1. The decision was made that a new policy was needed. It was updated by
the Kings County Department of Finance. The Grand Jury received copies
of two parts of the “ County of Kings Policy Manual” with the effective date
August 23, 2005: “ Surplus Property” and “ Inventory Control”. Copies of
those documents are attached hereto as Exhibit “ A” and made a part hereof.
2. The Grand Jury was told that county employees are strongly discouraged
from taking possession of surplus property, however this is not found in
any written policy.
3. Under the new policy which went into effect August 23, 2005 the county
removes missing items from the inventory list after two years. (“ Inventory
Control Policy V, Responsibility for Lost Assets”).
4. A visit was made to Kings County Warehouse. The warehouse had been
cleared of most County surplus property by sending it to the dump. Some
was useless, and some could have been repaired and recycled. A chain link
fence had been erected across the room, leaving a very small area for
surplus property. The fence and gate separating the two areas is not secure.
The majority of the warehouse will be used by the Public Works
Department, in an attempt to make better use of county buildings.
5. The County has developed a quality program for recycling computers with
the Kings Regional Occupation Program (“ KROP”). The computers are
repaired/ refurbished and provided to needy families at no cost.
6. The Kings County Board of Supervisors regularly increases the scrap dollar
value limit requiring its oversight ( currently $ 10,000). Items with scrap
value of less than $ 10,000 are disposed of by the Purchasing Manager or
Surplus Property Coordinator by whatever method they deem most
economically advantageous to the county.
7. The Grand Jury finds $ 10,000 scrap value excessive.
8. There is no line item in the budget making money available to repair usable
surplus items.
9. Information regarding surplus property is made available to department
heads via the Kings County website ( INSIDE KINGS) where they can
72
review the availability of items which could save money in their
departmental budgets.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The “ Policy Manual, Surplus Property” Section III. B. mentions “ Purchasing
Manager” who is the Director of Finance. That should be made clear.
2. “ Surplus Property Policy Section III. A.” should insert as a second sentence,
“ The purpose of creating the position of Surplus Property Coordinator is to
coordinate the disposition of surplus property in each department of Kings
County.”
3. “ Surplus Property Policy Section III. B. 2.” should be amended to read that
“ surplus or damaged property should be held for at least 30 days, either in
the office or in the warehouse.” During this time surplus property should
be listed on the computer as being available.
4. For maximum effectiveness the Department of Finance must ensure that the
new policies are understood, adhered to and enforced.
5. The warehouse gate and fence separating the two areas must be made
secure.
6. All items should be sent to the warehouse after thirty days to facilitate
pickup by charitable organizations in one central location.
7. Every effort should be made to donate all surplus items to a worthy
organization prior to disposal.
8. The name and telephone number of the person managing the warehouse
COMMENTS:
1. The current program for recycling surplus computers to KROP where they
are repaired and given without cost to needy families is commended.
2. Finding another use for surplus is needed. The Grand Jury suggests that
surplus property that no Kings County department wants be made available
to some charitable organization such as the Salvation Army. This would
promote goodwill in the community as well as saving taxpayer dollars for
disposal fees. should be made available to all departments.
3. The new policy does not prevent waste of taxpayers’ money.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agencies are required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:
• Kings County Board of Supervisors
73
74
DISASTER PLAN FOR KINGS COUNTY
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED
County’s disaster plan the recent Gulf Coast storms prompted the Grand
Jury to investigate Kings and communications network.
AUTHORITY
Our authority is pursuant to § § 925 and 925( a) of the California Penal Code.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
Interviews were conducted, documents researched and visits made.
PART ONE
FIRST FINDINGS
1. “ Government at all levels has the responsibility to plan for and
respond to disasters resulting from hazards that are known to threaten
the jurisdiction.” ( Kings County Emergency Operations Policy Plan
Statement)
2 Kings County agencies are prepared for both natural and manmade
emergencies.
SECOND FINDINGS
1 The Committee interviewed personnel from the Kings County Office
of Emergency Services ( OES) concerning Kings County’s disaster
plan.
2. The Committee visited Kings County Dispatch Center. We were told
that it has the capacity to communicate with all agencies at all times.
Communications equipment is constantly being upgraded as funds
allow.
3. Personnel from safety services of the Cities of Hanford, Lemoore and
Corcoran and the California Highway Patrol were interviewed
concerning their disaster plan. All have an Emergency Operations
Command Center ( EOC) which can communicate with all of the
cities’ and county’s agencies.
4. All agencies have a Mobile Command Center available to them.
5 Every department has a written Standard Emergency Management
Systems ( SEMS) plan which is updated annually.
6 We were informed that all Kings County Emergency Services
agencies enjoy an extraordinarily close and cooperative relationship.
7 Funding to support emergency services is supplemented by
Department of Homeland Security.
8 The position of Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services in
Kings County is half time. The same person is also employed half-time
by the Kings County Fire Department, making that person
available 8 hours a day. Half of the salary is paid by Kings County
and half is paid by federal funds.
PART TWO
STRUCTURE OF A DISASTER PLAN
1. When all resources of the initiating agency are exhausted, the
following sequence of requests for additional aid must be followed to
the next level:
2 The first responder will remain in charge of a disaster until someone
from the agency to which the responsibility rests arrives.
3 The responsible agency would first draw upon all agencies within
Kings County, then; Region V. The State of California is divided into
six regions. Kings County is part of Region V. The Inland
2
Operations Center ( Region V) also includes Merced, Mariposa,
Madera, Fresno and Tulare counties.
4. After that the State of California will receive requests for aid.
5. The final resource will be the Federal Government. This sequence
must be followed exactly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The position of Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services
should be a full- time position. That person should ascertain that all
fire stations in Kings County have multiple copies of the personal
emergency preparedness leaflet.
2. Disaster preparedness literature should be distributed to all police
departments ( including the California Highway Patrol), sheriff’s
substations and fire stations throughout Kings County.
COMMENTS
1. All agencies interviewed recommend that individuals be prepared to
survive on their own for a reasonable length of time.
2. It is necessary that individuals be prepared to be self- sustaining in a
disaster.
3. Citizens can visit any Hanford Fire Station or the Kings County Fire
Department Headquarters on Campus Drive in Hanford for literature
and recommendations.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933 ( c) the following are required to
respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.
• Kings County Board of Supervisors
• Kings County Fire Chief
• Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services
3
KINGS AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SYNOPSIS:
On November 3, 2005 the Kings County Grand Jury received a Request for Investigation
concerning a citizen’s property being used as a Kings Area Rapid Transit ( KART) bus
stop, thus creating a trash and loitering problem in front of his home.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
The 2005- 2006 Kings County Grand Jury received a Request for Investigation on behalf
of the property owner asking for assistance in resolving the problem of the unmarked bus
stop.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 925( a), “ The
Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or
Joint Powers Agency located in the county.”
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the Grand Jury rode the KART bus on the Hanford- Lemoore Direct Route
on January 6, 2006. Management of KART and a representative of the Commission on
Aging were interviewed on January 20, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. A KART bus can stop, on request, at any location on its route, except in the City
of Hanford.
2. Bus routes are reviewed yearly.
3. The bus was clean, the driver courteous and helpful.
91
ARMONA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
SYNOPSIS:
Through local media coverage the Grand Jury became aware of potential problems
relating to water and sewage issues in the Armona area and therefore began an
investigation into the preparations that the district was making to deal with this
potential problem.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Concerns by the Grand Jury and other citizens that the housing density in Armona
could compromise the water and sewer structure.
AUTHORITY:
The Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 933.5 as to the
investigation of special purpose assessing or taxing districts.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the Grand Jury interviewed an official of the Armona Community
Service District on February 10, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. There are plans to drill another well ( Well # 7) in the immediate future.
2. Well # 7 would service 1800 connections.
3. Funds are in place or nearly in place to fund the drilling of Well # 7.
4. Land is being obtained for the well.
5. There are plans being drawn up for a possible second new well.
6. Bids have been invited to expand the sewage treatment capacity to
encompass all the anticipated new growth.
CONCLUSION:
The Grand Jury was impressed that the Armona Community Service District has
been so forward- thinking in their planning for growth in their district. The
89
Armona Community Service District has made plans for the rapid expansion of
their district to cause little disruption to the present citizens of the district while
serving the needs of the incoming community members.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE:
None needed. This is an informational report only.
90
4. The corner at 18th Avenue and Bush Street in Lemoore is too congested with
traffic and pedestrians making it a dangerous and unsuitable location for a bus
stop.
5. Litter was seen around many of the bus stops but it is picked up at designated bus
stops twice weekly and at other bus stop locations every two weeks.
6. The fare increases are due to population growth resulting in government funding
changes.
7. Seniors may buy bus tickets at a reduced rate at the Commission on Aging Office
at 1197 South Drive, Hanford.
CONCLUSION:
The Grand Jury thanks KART management for responding immediately to its concerns.
The bus stop on the congested and dangerous corner of 18th Avenue and Bush Street has
been relocated. The complainant’s property is no longer used as a bus stop. Litter is
picked up at official bus stops twice weekly and at other bus stop locations every two
weeks. Seniors may buy bus tickets at a reduced rate at the Commission on Aging office
at 1197 South Drive.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE:
None needed. This is an informational report only.
92
KIT CARSON SCHOOL DISTRICT
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury received a complaint concerning a child who got
off a school bus with blood on his face and hands. When the parent called the
school, the school could not get in touch with bus driver. School personnel told her
they would get back to her. School personnel did get back to her and she was told
the bus driver could not be reached because the radio was off. Later that day she
was contacted and told the camera was not functioning.
AUTHORITY:
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.5
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews on site at Kit Carson School with the School Superintendent and the
Traffic Director were held. There were two incidents that happened between
January and the time of the interview. In one incident the school could not reach
the person driving the bus because the radio was off. An on site review of repair
records of Kit Carson school buses at the Hanford High School District Garage
was held in April, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. Radios and cameras are not required by law to be installed on school buses.
2. Most cameras that are installed in school buses are set to operate zero to
thirty minutes after the ignition is turned off.
3. There are no records showing any cameras on the Kit Carson school buses
have been repaired from January 2006 to the time of the interview for this
report in April, 2006.
4. The cameras on Kit Carson School buses are set to run ten minutes after the
ignition is turned off.
5. Most cameras have an eight- hour run time limit before they automatically
rewind.
93
6. Kit Carson School buses have radios and cameras installed by the Hanford
High District Garage. The radios can be turned off by the driver.
7. By law buses must be inspected every 3,000 miles, or after operating for 45
days, whichever comes first.
COMMENTS:
1. The Kit Carson School Traffic Director has agreed to our
recommendation. This will be implemented as soon as possible.
2. During the Grand Jury’s interview at the Kit Carson School the Grand
Jury was told the radio problem has been taken care of. The bus
drivers now have with them on their person a Nextel walkie- talkie.
There is no reasonable situation in which the school could not reach
the driver, even if the bus radio is turned off.
3. The camera was not found to be malfunctioning but it was more than
likely in the rewind mode.
RECOMMENDATION:
Tape on cameras should be changed on a daily basis and saved for at least twenty-four
hours.
RESPONSE:
No response required for this report
94
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury visited the Juvenile Detention Center on January 5, 2006.
The tour was conducted by a senior staff member.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Public interest
AUTHORITY:
The Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code Section § 919( b) “ The Grand
Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the
county.”
FINDINGS:
1. Offenders may be in detention for a week or even a year.
2. When they turn eighteen, they may be sent to California Youth Authority.
3. Most juvenile offenders are here for assault.
4. Gang activity is not tolerated.
5. This is a maximum security facility with most holding cells for two and a few for
one. Capacity is regulated to forty- six. There are usually about twenty juvenile
offenders at one time.
6. Each cell has an intercom so conversations can be monitored.
7. There are no cameras in the cells, only in the halls.
8. Male and female offenders are kept in separate areas.
9. There is a lunchroom and a staffed kitchen. Hot meals are served for breakfast
and dinner. Noon meals are a sack lunch.
COMMENTS:
1. Some detainees are over eighteen because the crime was committed when they
were younger.
2. The building is concrete block with steel doors. There are some windows.
3. Sometimes an offender will bang or kick the door. They are told to stop. If they
continue, disciplinary action is taken.
95
4. Some inmates are fourth generation offenders. They see parents involved in
illegal activities and that is the example they follow.
5. The offenders medical and mental needs are taken care of by a doctor and a
psychiatrist. A nurse is always on duty, distributing medication and keeping
records.
6. The Grand Jury was impressed with the efficient operation of this facility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None.
RESPONSE:
No response is required for this report.
96
KINGS COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE
SYNOPSIS:
In the fall of 1991 the Sheriff’s Department and the Office of the District Attorney saw
the need for an agency to control the gang activity that had been growing in Kings
County. Thus, the multi- agency unit consisting of members from the Kings County
Sheriff’s Department, Hanford Police Department, Lemoore Police Department and
Corcoran Police Department was created under the direction of the Kings County
Probation Department. Prevention, intervention and suppression are the goals of the
Kings County Gang Task Force.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 925 which
states, “ The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, and records of the
officers, departments or functions of the county.”
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
On November 10, 2005 a member of the Kings County Gang Task Force ( KCGTF) was
interviewed. On November 30, 2005 two members of the KCGTF made a presentation to
the Grand Jury. Documents were made available to the Grand Jury by the KCGTF and
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.
FINDINGS:
1. Information derived from interviews and presentation by the KCGTF:
a. Gang members are identified to other gang members by specific colors,
numbers, tattoos or gestures.
b. Gang members are commonly between the ages of 13 and 19 years of age
but have been found as young as eight years of age.
c. Gangs are commonly segregated along ethnic lines.
d. Some gang members have family members who belong to a gang.
e. When a known gang member, or someone known to be related to a gang
member, is arraigned in a gang related crime, the charges may be enhanced.
This can result in a longer prison sentence
97
f. Most gang activity occurs at night.
g. The KCGTF will make a presentation to any requesting public agency.
h. If a citizen finds graffiti on his property, he may call the Probation
Department Office at 582- 3211, extension 3850. That office will arrange to
have it removed.
2. Information derived from documents provided by the KCGTF and the Kings
County District Attorney’s Office:
a. The KCTGF created 92 crime reports in 2005; 71 of those reports were
gang related and 41 were felony cases.
b. The KCGTF participated in or arrested 187 offenders; 138 of those arrested
were gang members or associates.
c. KCGTF estimates that at any given time there are about 5,000 active gang
members in Kings County.
d. From documents furnished by KCGTF:
“ Gang crimes included homicide, attempted homicide,
assault with a deadly weapon, battery, vandalism, drug
sales, possession of dangerous/ deadly weapons, throwing
an object at a vehicle, witness intimidation, terrorist
threats, illegal firearms possession, burglary, theft,
vehicle theft, forgery, fraud, etc. Gang members are not
specific as to which crimes they will commit. One of the
things that makes them gang members is that they
commit crimes, any and all crimes.”
COMMENTS:
The Kings County Grand Jury thanks the KCGTF and the District Attorney’s
Office for their aid in putting together this report. Keep up the good work.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:
No response is required for this report.
98
BOOT CAMP VISIT
SYNOPSIS:
The Kings County Grand Jury visited the Boot Camp on January 5, 2006.
WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:
Public interest.
AUTHORITY:
The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 919( b), “ The
Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the
County.”
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the Kings County Grand Jury toured the Boot Camp on January 5, 2006.
FINDINGS:
1. Kings County started the Boot Camp program in 1995.
2. A juvenile offender can be recommended for the Boot Camp program by his or her
Probation Officer. When approved by a judge the juvenile offender is ordered to
Boot Camp for a specific length of time.
3. The Boot Camp program is designed for male and female juvenile offenders who
are kept separated except for classroom instruction. They are each divided into
two groups: first offenders and repeat offenders.
4. Although about 80% of the juvenile offenders are gang members, no gang activity
is tolerated.
5. Juvenile offenders are always under adult supervision.
6. The normal periods of stay at the Boot Camp are three or five months.
7. The juveniles participate in physical training, academics, victim awareness, drug
and alcohol counseling, anger management and community service.
99
COMMENTS:
1. All juvenile offenders have duties which are rotated periodically.
2. Girls wear no make- up and their hair is neatly pulled back in a bun.
3. Boys have very short hair and are clean shaven.
4. The program is very structured and stresses military protocol, physical
conditioning, education and life skills.
5. Groups wear distinctive clothing. Most wear camouflage. Group leaders, who
earn that rank, wear grey.
6. Groups move from one location to the next marching in close formation.
7. The Probation Department provides for the medical and psychiatric needs of the
juvenile offenders.
8. There are Sunday church services available.
9. In the classrooms, girls sit on one side and the boys on the other. They are not
allowed to talk unless directed by the teacher.
10. The Grand Jury was impressed with the efficient operation of this facility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
RESPONSE:
No response is required for this report.
100
KINGS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
SYNOPSIS:
The Grand Jury received two requests to investigate the services provided as well
as the manner of service provided by the Kings County Department of Child
Support Services. The complaints stated that the clients felt as if they were being
singled out for punitive action by the Child Support Services.
AUTHORITY:
Our authority is pursuant to California Penal Code § 925.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
Interviews were conducted and documents researched.
Findings:
1. That in both cases, instructions from the Court were not followed and that
the clients repeatedly did not respond to Court orders, including
summonses to appear in court.
2. That in both cases, the clients fell grossly behind in child and/ or spousal
support payments.
3. That the directions given to both clients were clear and concise.
4. That Child Support Services and the Court are dependent upon each client
for information which would cause changes to be made in the amount of
child and/ or spousal support paid by said client.
5. That Child Support Services is open and most willing to work with every
person who is ordered to pay support but is dependent upon a two way line
of communication.
6. That an audit can and will be done if requested in writing by the
complaining party.
7. That an audit was made by Child Support Services for one of the clients
and an error, in his favor, was found. He was immediately notified and a
refund was initiated.
101
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Child Support Services office continue to communicate with clients so
that they might be more aware of the audit request process.
COMMENTS:
The Grand Jury commends the Child Support Services office for requesting a
second interview with the Grand Jury in order to admit that an error in calculations
had been made and to explain the new procedure implemented to avoid repeating
that mistake. Members of the Child Support Services Department examined every
like case to make sure that there were no similar errors and found none. The Child
Support Services office also developed an additional step in preparing calculations
so that errors of this type would be eliminated.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:
None required.
102